A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study and, guess what, vaccinated kids do better on tests

22 Jan

One statement people make a lot on the internet is “where’s a study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations?” Well, here’s one: The effect of vaccination on children’s physical and cognitive development in the Philippines.

When comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations are proposed, we usually think of the U.S. and trying to work with the small unvaccinated population in a larger vaccinated population. Here we see the reverse: a smaller vaccinated population in a majority unvaccinated population.

What did they find? Here’s the abstract:

We use data from the Cebu Longitudinal Health and Nutrition Survey (CLHNS) in the Philippines to link vaccination in the first 2 years of life with later physical and cognitive development in children. We use propensity score matching to estimate the causal effect of vaccination on child development. We find no effect of vaccination on later height or
weight, but full childhood vaccination for measles, polio, Tuberculosis (TB), Diphtheria, Pertussis and Tetanus (DPT) significantly increases cognitive test scores relative to matched children who received no
vaccinations. The size of the effect is large, raising test scores, on average, by about half an SD.

That’s right. Test scores are increased in the vaccinated population. Higher. They did better.

The study highlights many of the difficulties in doing a vaccinated/unvaccinated population comparison: how to control for confounds. The population that choses the minority approach, be it vaccinating (in the Philippines) or not vaccinating (as in the U.S.) are likely different in other respects as well. Small sample sizes also a limitation. The authors acknoweldge this:

While our results are statistically significant, the sample size is relatively small due to the restriction of the sample to the common support. In addition, the matching of treatment and control groups may be imperfect if there are unobserved confounding factors that affect both vaccination and cognitive development. We therefore do not see our results as definitive. However, the results do however highlight the potential significance of vaccination as a human capital investment and suggest that further research in this area is warranted.

So, let’s consider this question: if there is a real correlation, is it the vaccination itself (unlikely in my opinion) or preventing the diseases (much more likely)? Since as I’ve indicated, I tend towards the latter explanation, let’s consider this: another effect of herd immunity might be cognitive. Since my family and the vast majority of families in the U.S. vaccinate, many diseases are not seen here. Even the unvaccinated are protected.

So, when Jenny McCarthy or others say, “I’d take measles any day over autism”, aside from making the huge mistake of assuming that autism and vaccination are linked, she may be saying “I’d take a half-standard-deviation drop in cognition over vaccination”.

I await the inevitable, “we asked for a comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations, but not that comparison”.

By Matt Carey

177 Responses to “A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study and, guess what, vaccinated kids do better on tests”

  1. reissd January 22, 2014 at 20:55 #

    If it doesn’t get the right results, it doesn’t count.

    • healthnut March 21, 2015 at 22:15 #

      This study used a “small sample size” while two large studies covering many years (done in New Zealand and Germany) show the opposite: http://vactruth.com/2014/02/26/unvaccinated-children-healthier/

      • Lawrence March 21, 2015 at 22:57 #


      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 22, 2015 at 01:56 #

        Let’s start with your link.

        The German “study” was discussed as:

        “Dr. Andreas Bachmair, a German classical homeopathic practitioner, responsible for collecting the results of the survey from the website vaccineinjury.info stated that:”

        The New Zealand “study” is discussed in your link thus:

        “In 1992, the Immunization Awareness Society (IAS) conducted a survey to examine the health of New Zealand’s children. Unsurprisingly, the results of their study indicated that unvaccinated children were far healthier than vaccinated children.

        Questionnaires were given out to IAS members, their friends and their associates asking various health questions. A total of 245 families returned their questionnaires, giving the researchers a total of 495 children surveyed. Of these children, 226 were vaccinated and 269 were unvaccinated.”

        So, in two cases a survey of people who are antagonistic towards vaccines found that their opinion is that vaccines are bad. In the words of the article, this conclusion is “unsurprising”.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 22, 2015 at 02:03 #

        The IAS now calls itself WAVESNZ, and their pamphlet states

        “WAVESNZ believes that:
        • natural immunity is superior to artificial immunity;
        • human milk is the best immune stimulator during the first year of life;
        • a healthy diet and lifestyle prevent disease more effectively than artificial
        • most childhood illnesses serve to strengthen and mature the child’s immune system
        and provide lifelong immunity; the vast majority of childhood infections are
        benign and self-limiting in a healthy child.”

        Basically, vaccines bad. Disease good.

        And “Vaccines are not very effective in preventing the disease that they are supposed to protect against. ” Along with the usual, “vaccines didn’t save us” type graphs that are common among those who oppose vaccines.

        So a survey of this group’s membership said that vaccines are bad. And this is a “study”? It is what it is, a survey of people who oppose vaccines which said survey concludes that vaccines aren’t good.

        Again, “unsurprising” result. Not “valid” result. Unsurprising.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 22, 2015 at 02:08 #

        Next we have “vaccineinjury.info”. Said website states

        Vaccinations in their principle are an attack to the immune system. This especially applies to infants, toddlers and young children

        “An attack to the immune system”. Readers of this site are expected to be a representative cross section of society? (answer: no)

        On one page there’s an entire section “The questionable Immunisation”

        So, again, I find it “unsurprising” that a survey of readers of that site came to the conclusion that vaccines are bad.

        They are survey’s of a minority viewpoint. Not scientific studies.

      • Krishna July 18, 2016 at 10:47 #

        Hoping this goes where it should in the comment stream…

        I am PROUD to be an educated anti-vaxxer – but I stand by YOUR right to inject toxins into your children, or your own body. But don’t expect anyone to buy the ridiculous concept of “herd immunity” from vaccination, which NEVER takes place, even with 99+% compliance, which is the only possible justification for enforced vaccination – especially since it is contrary to RIGHTS granted under the US Constitution, and various international treaties which the USA is signatory to, ALL of which make informed consent essential.

        As for polio, I think you most likely are not even aware of what that really MEANS, because at present the definition of “polio” IS is RADICALLY different from what it was before the mass vaccination campaign began. Which, incidentally, spread a hitherto-unknown, cancer-causing virus to MILLIONS – as previously acknowledged by the CDC on their own website – while failing to really address the actual cause of the mass paralysis caused by medical ignorance, not a virus, really. It made a relatively harmless bug a near-fatal disease!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 18, 2016 at 14:47 #

        Ironic when someone claims to be educated and denies such a simple concept as her immunity.

        Many who take classes fail. Many who pass don’t really understand the topic.

        Krishna gives a good example of that here.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 18, 2016 at 14:51 #

        There is a troll by the pseudonym “anonymous” who keeps posting here.

        I am not here to host trolls.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 18, 2016 at 15:40 #

        Krishan is “educated” and calls Polio “a relatively harmless bug”.


      • Chris July 18, 2016 at 13:21 #

        Krishna: “I am PROUD to be an educated anti-vaxxer – but I stand by YOUR right to inject toxins into your children, or your own body. ”

        Then it should be easy to share that education with us. Just answer a few questions:

        So what toxins in any vaccine are more toxic than tetanospasmin, diphtheria toxin and pertussis toxin?

        What PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers show that the present American MMR vaccine causes more harm than measles mumps and rubella?

        How does it work to “redefine” polio when they can differentiate between the three different serotypes with geneitic analysis methods for a few decades?

    • Steven April 11, 2015 at 03:04 #

      If the study is true then why are Americans so stupid?

      • Chris April 11, 2015 at 03:32 #

        How does this study apply to Americans? Or did you not read the article?

    • angel July 21, 2015 at 20:57 #

      I can tell you one thing. I deal with the VACCINATED kids, and the UN-VACCINATED kids, daily. I help them to graduate, pass their tests, understand information, etc. I deal with approx 800 or more students a year, on a day to day, basis. I deal with home-schooled children, those that are amazing in school, those that struggle in school, those that have deficits of all sorts, and the list goes on and on. What I’ve seen over the years is this: The child’s intelligence is NOT BASED ON VACCINATING or NOT VACCINATING. It is based on what the parents and teachers do with the blank slate they have in their possession. ANY child, autistic or otherwise, has an amazing ability to learn, regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not. Those that choose a healthier lifestyle, such as vegetarians, home-schoolers, etc. are usually better educated. Those that choose to vaccinate, well..that part doesn’t seem to matter one way or another, in my professional opinion. I have worked in the school system and out of it. So, I have PERSONAL experience on this issue. If the school is a bad school, the kids will learn less. If the area is a bad area, it will also affect the student’s grades. If the parents don’t know how to parent properly, the kids will also suffer. If the parents are great parents, the kids will flourish.

      There are so many variables that could change the results of the students’ educational capabilities, that to say one way or another, regarding vaccines, would be silly, at best.

      For instance, if I tried to say that area 1..a poor neighborhood, where kids don’t go to school as often as they should, had lower grades, vs a wealthy neighborhood, where most kids went to school, or 2. a wealthy neighborhood vs a different wealthy neighborhood, where the parents of both thought in completely different ways when it came to education…well, either could toss the results into the garbage. If you use one school where the kids are taught differently from another school, again, it would make the results useless…NULL and VOID!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 25, 2015 at 05:14 #

        You have “personal experience” but not data.

        The above study is not strong by any means. But I am still amazed at how it seems to really bother those who dislike vaccines.

        Not being sick for much of your education. Do you think that might lead to better test scores?

      • carianne January 7, 2016 at 06:47 #

        Very well stated.

    • krishnamurphy54 September 18, 2015 at 19:51 #

      Here is an article with analysis of some very interesting studies regarding this subject. I especially appreciated the valuable insight they shared regarding the studies often used by the pro-vaxers. http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/science/studies-comparing-vaccinated-to-unvaccinated-populations/

      • Chris September 18, 2015 at 20:54 #

        That is some real amusing cherry picking. I especially love the inclusion of a study done in Guinea-Bissau. I expect you would do well if you moved there and lived on the economy.

        Oh, and it is also hilarious that the self-selected survey by a homeopath was compared along side a real German study.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2016 at 23:03 #

        I guess you feel the need to advertise other sites here rather than actually participate in the conversation?

        Have you read the page? Understood it? Because you have given no indication that you have.

        Which is to say, you appear to be trolling/spamming

  2. reissd January 22, 2014 at 21:09 #

    An anti-vaccine advocate pointed out with some glee that the link above isn’t working. He seemed to think that absolves him from considering the content, even after having a different link supplied. Sigh.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 22, 2014 at 22:20 #

      Thanks for pointing that out. Said anti-vaccine advocate could have found the paper either through google (I guess that google Ph.D. expired) or by fixing the obvious problem with the link. I can’t say why WordPress munged the link as it is fine in the version I wrote. I suspect it may have to do with all the numbers and the periods, since the new link works for me now: http://tinyurl.com/vaxedkidsaresmarter

      • reissd January 22, 2014 at 22:23 #

        I think he was more interested in a Gotcha moment.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 22, 2014 at 22:33 #

        Oh, I make a lot of typo’s, spelling and formatting mistakes. No end to amusement for those easily amused. It gave me an opportunity to create the tinyurl, so I thank him. I too am easily amused. Frankly I’m surprised he read that far and clicked on the link.

  3. reissd January 22, 2014 at 22:37 #

    To his credit, this specific person does read studies I put up. With a clear point of view, and he does not read his own links as carefully, but he does read studies.

    The person was concerned about typos in an earlier version of the article that I linked him to. I am grateful for the corrected URL, myself.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 22, 2014 at 23:16 #

      There’s a lot to discuss in the real limitations of the study above. Typos and links are minor.

  4. brian January 23, 2014 at 01:58 #

    I’m not sure how avoiding childhood disease would play out with respect to child development in a first-world country, but it’s been clear for years that disease burden influences cognition where the effect has been studied. People like Dr. Offit who help to prevent pediatric disease can have an effect on the development of other nations far beyond the immediate prevention of disease, discomfort, hospitalizations, and deaths.

  5. Paula M Green January 23, 2014 at 07:40 #

    Matt – Is there any chance you can put a button to linkedin.com for your blogs? I want to try and post some of your information to some of the Autism groups as there are a lot of influencial people on there, rather than twitter or facebook. I think your information needs to be in the public domain more so that people can get a more balanced view of the research and they way you research the research I feel is good and straightforward and easy to understand for parents like me. Regards Paula

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 23, 2014 at 15:41 #

      thanks for the suggestion. The linkedIn button is now live.

  6. shannon January 23, 2014 at 18:36 #

    Lol this article is a joke! The only thing vaccines accomplish is severly compromising the immune system (which has been PROVEN by doctors worldwide). I’m still laughing over “test scores increased in the vaccinated population”. How about some REAL REASEARCH instead of studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry???

    • reissd January 23, 2014 at 18:42 #

      Why do you think this study is sponsored by pharma? And can you provide citations for your claims? Is there anything about the content of the article you’d like to discuss, or is the pharma shill gambit your only concern?

      • kulkulkan January 24, 2014 at 16:55 #

        This study was funded by “Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization” and retrospectively picked a small region in a Philippines with only 85 vaccinated kids born in 1984. Google the study – there is a full draft available. Guess they didn’t pay the researcher enough money to at least make it look credible. It is a joke.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 24, 2014 at 20:25 #

        Yeah, let’s throw it out because there are typos in the draft…I was waiting for someone to notice it was funded by GAVI. They are independent. But not the right sort of “independent”, are they? I don’t have to google the study, I already read it. Both in the draft online and the final version. What makes you think I didn’t? I’ve noted above the study has serious limitations. Coming to an answer you don’t agree with is not a limitation though. Nice of you to attack the researcher.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 23, 2014 at 19:11 #


      your response is exactly what I expected. Exactly. Clearly you didn’t read the paper, or you’d be demonizing someone other than the pharmaceutical industry. So we find you laughing at something you didn’t attempt to read.

      If you want to discuss the real limitations of this study, and there are very real limitations, come on back.

      • kulkulkan January 24, 2014 at 17:13 #

        Matt, did you read the paper – it is not worth even discussing study design here with n=85 in a single birth year cohort in small region. it is a joke. Would not cherry pick a weak data set such as this. Looks bad on the researcher but I guess they are being paid, so doesn’t matter to them.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 24, 2014 at 20:27 #

        Yeah, they are being paid. So they will say anything? If they had come to the opposite answer you’d be all over this as the greatest study ever. It’s not very strong, but it gives a great example of exactly the sort of difficulties there are in such a study.

        While we are at it–Don’t ever come here with a study with fewer than 85 subjects. I guess you throw out Wakefield’s Lancet article, right?

      • kulkulkan January 24, 2014 at 22:52 #

        Matt, I am sure you can appreciate the difference as well as the importance of N in a retrospective study in statistics which this pretends to be (is this self-published or just an internal working paper?), and a prospective study to publish a hypothesis piece based on new clinical data in a peer-reviewed journal. All studies, not matter how well designed, will have flaws and limitations. Haven’t read the Lancelet paper; however, personally, I don’t believe the MMR ASD link is significant regardless of whether it is plausible or not.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 24, 2014 at 23:21 #

        I understand that a true case series would likely be a limited number of subjects. I also understand that the Lancet study was not a true case series given the way the patients were referred.

        The study was published. The link is above. The working paper is online, but the final version was in a journal.

        Is the study above definitive? No. I am clear on my opinion on that. The authors are clear on that point. Is it a joke? No. I’d give your discussion more credence if you didn’t rely on bashing the authors as doing whatever they had to get paid. Unless you have something about the authors to back that up (say, like a long history of soaking the vaccine program like the Geiers), the statement only serves to make you look bad. There are a lot of limitations to the study. One could discuss those rationally. You chose not to.

      • Kulkulkan January 25, 2014 at 03:44 #

        To be clear if the study had said the reverse, it would still be garbage in, garbage out. With such a weak study design using small data set from single cohort that is 30 years old, it is a bit silly to discuss the confounders or the simple statistical analysis done here. This looks like a marketing piece much like the Geirs – for spin purposes only, not research.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 25, 2014 at 06:37 #

        There’s a bit of irony that you refuse to add substance to your complaint. You just complain, repeatedly, that the paper lacks substance.

        Being a thirty year old cohort, not a substantive complaint. The UCLA/Utah autism project reviewed data from 30 years ago. I thought it was valuable to do so. Small group–yep, that’s a limitation. Largely because of the confounds. Without confounds, what makes 85 too small? Some results are statistically significant. Single cohort? Since when is that substantive?

        Sure, now, I just ignore Geier papers. The track record is just too bad. But that’s because I and others have made substantive responses to their work.

        But I get it. I’ve been chastised.

        One of the main reasons I put this article up was to gather up the responses. All the “this study is junk because…” comments. Thanks for participating. It reminds me why it’s important to back up a complaint about a study with substance.

    • novalox January 24, 2014 at 06:59 #


      So, any actual proof for your so-called assertions?

  7. Alex Klitbøl Karlsson January 23, 2014 at 18:43 #

    What I am thinking is this: Is wealth and vaccination linked in the Phillipines?
    Cause one must ask themselves:
    ‘If the ones vaccinated in the Phillipines has more money, does the larger amount of resources result in the higher scores, or is it actually the vaccines themselves?’

    I am completely FOR vaccines, but I am always a skeptic relating to research if enough factors hasn’t been checked up on.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 23, 2014 at 19:20 #

      This is not the most definitive paper I’ve seen. The authors noted that and I point that out above. Definitely there are many confounds–ones they tried to control for and ones they may have missed. Here’s a draft of the paper without the paywall

      Click to access PGDA_WP_69.pdf

      This paragraph is likely the thought you had:

      Estimating the effect of vaccination on height, weight, and test scores is complicated by the fact that vaccination involves a choice by the child’s parents. As a result, any difference between outcomes for vaccinated and non-vaccinated children may reflect family attributes associated with the decision to vaccinate rather than the effect of the vaccination itself. In a controlled experiment, a randomly selected set of children would be immunized while a control group would not be, and the difference between the outcome for the immunized group and the control group could be deemed a causal effect of immunization. In our study, however, the group that is immunized is not randomly selected; for example, we find immunization is more common for children with highly educated mothers. In this case, it is difficult to disentangle the effect of immunization and the effect of having a highly educated mother.

      They then discuss their methods. They do not just compare those vaccinated directly with those unvaccinated.

      This method matches each child (or group of children) who is immunized with a non-immunized child (or group of children) that has the same observed characteristics. To the extent that vaccination depends only on these observed characteristics, we can regard the children used as matches as controls for each vaccinated child.

      Many if not all of the problems exhibited by this study would have to be faced and overcome by a similar study in the U.S.. This is a point that those calling for such a study refuse to acknowledge. For example, they propose using the Amish and comparing them to non-Amish. On how many different measures can one find differences (ignoring for the moment that, yes, the Amish do vaccinate). They propose using home-schooled children. Again, a group that will undoubtedly differ from the general population on many measures.

      I don’t claim this study is definitive. It is, however, very interesting.

    • novalox January 24, 2014 at 07:06 #

      @Alex Klitbøl Karlsson

      Not to confuse correlation with causation, but one could assume that the children vaccinated would not fall ill with VPDs, allowing them to get more schooling and education, which may help them in testing.

      But of course, as Sullivan said, there are a lot of other co-factors in play as well, one which the study tried to control by matching children with as similar backgrounds as possible. Of course, not all factors can be matched perfectly, but the paper does raise some interesting points.

  8. passionlessdrone January 24, 2014 at 18:48 #

    Hello friends –

    It might be nice to understand how many of the children who didn’t get vaccinated actually GOT a VPD during infancy/childhood.

    It also seems like mother education was only one thing that predicted vaccination status (and thus, IQ)

    We find evidence of a positive association between vaccination and socioeconomic status, with children living in larger homes, and with private or public access to a toilet, fewer siblings, and better educated and better nourished mothers being more likely to be vaccinated. In addition, being vaccinated is positively associated with the number of days the child was breastfed. The only counterintuitive result among these variables is that children in homes with an electrical appliance (an iron) are less likely to have been vaccinated.

    Other research seems to back up an association between length of breastfeeding and cognitive development; i.e.,


    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 24, 2014 at 20:33 #

      The authors note that breastfeeding is postively correlated with later test scores.

      “It also seems like mother education was only one thing that predicted vaccination status (and thus, IQ)”.

      Do you mean positively predicted vaccination status? Electrical appliances and number of children in the home were negative predictors if I recall.

  9. Lauren Ambrose January 29, 2014 at 07:42 #

    Vaccination is responsible for prevention of diseases, i dont understand how is it linked to cognitive development.

    • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 14:48 #

      Vaccination is linked to cognitive development because numerous published studies show injecting antigens into infant animals during critical periods of development causes brain damage, and likewise for injecting the aluminum adjuvants found in some vaccines like Hep B and DTP. See http://whyarethingsthisway.com for a literature survey.

  10. natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 14:44 #

    This article is debunked at http://whyarethingsthisway.com
    Basically, you would probably agree that every parent in the survey, or certainly every parent of even moderate intelligence and education, wanted to get their kids vaccinated. Succeeding in this task was a real-world IQ test as well as a test of parenting involvement. So it is probably about as good a proxy for “prior propensity to produce intelligent children” as one could hope to imagine. It was also a hidden factor, not controlled for in any way in the study. They took the top 85 kids out of a distribution of 2000 in this measure, so the vaccinated kids start out 2 standard deviations above mean. They compared them to kids chosen from the bottom half of the bell curve on this prior propensity, so the vaccinated kids start out maybe 2.5 standard deviations above. So the result that they wind up .5 standard deviations above seems to indicate they might have lost 2 standard deviations due to the vaccination effects. And its ludicrous that they had no height advantage for the top 85 kids vs the bottom of the distribution, kids who were smaller at birth and substantially lived in homes without toilets or water.

    If they wanted to have a more meaningful study, they should have compared kids who got DTP to kids who didn’t, as in the Guinea-Bisseau study which faced similar hidden factors favoring the vaccinated. That also wouldn’t have led them to have only 85 data points. But it probably would have shown substantial cognitive deficits.

    • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 15:02 #

      Let me put this in more colloquial terms. You and your wife were 2.5 standard deviations up on the SAT, you both got 750’s. Your kid is only .5 standard deviations up, he got a 550. Are you happy?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2014 at 15:10 #

        Depends on my child’s abilities, not mine. Perhaps you can go away and rethink how insulting you’ve just been.

      • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 15:48 #

        No, that’s the point. Your child would have had a 750, but you injected him with antigens and aluminum during critical periods of his brain development.

        Somethiing like that exact scenario is what the published, peer reviewed scientific literature points to, as I reviewed in the paper which, I expect you are right, they will refuse to listen to. So I’m asking you, please, if I’m wrong debunk my paper like you debunk others, but if I’m right, which I am, open your mind.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2014 at 17:16 #

        I understood your point. You don’t understand mine.

        I wondered how long it would take you to get to the “open minded” phase. This is where you pat yourself on the back for being “open minded” and discount those who disagree with you as not being “open minded”. Ironically it’s a very close minded mindset.

        I’m open minded. Your arguments are old, borrowed and not good. Open minded does not mean “I accept everything you say without question”.

        I see you found a fallback position on your paper submission. You were hoping for juicy comments to blog after you got rejected. Now it’s “they refuse to listen”. Either way, you paint yourself as the brave maverick, victimized by The Man.

        Your paper is not good. Also, Pediatrics does not publish review articles often (seems like one every few months). Their statement is “PEDIATRICS continues this legacy, publishing original research, clinical observations, and special feature articles in the field of pediatrics, as broadly defined. ” Your work is not original research nor clinical observations. You might try to twist the definition of “special feature” but that’s not a good description for your work either.

        Your next steps no doubt will be to go through your literature and figure out which journals are “open minded” (i.e. credulous) and submit there. Depending on the level of effort you wish to put in, you will then do the “internet radio” (i.e. podcast) circuit and, as already noted, start giving talks at pay-for-play venues. With a lot of work you can get yourself in to the real junkets (sadly, you’ve missed the chance to get an all expense paid trip to Jamaica).

        I know this sounds like I’m being mean to you, but I’m just extrapolating on the data you present and the data from the people who have trod this path before you.

        As I’ve said before, I’m not here to do your homework nor to sharpen your arguments. You are wrong. And not worth debunking.

        [note: edited to change “not” to “nor”]

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2014 at 15:05 #

      You really seem challenged by this study. And creating a new blog and submitting a paper are very predictable. Shall I write your article for after your paper gets rejected by pediatrics? It almost certainly won’t get to a referee. You do realize that front tier journals screen heavily by editors before going to referee.

      • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 15:09 #

        The study is ridiculous, as I pointed out. And furthermore, buried in their data is probably actual useful evidence, if they just analyze it in a sensible fashion. I’m not challenged by it, its just the only study I could find that compares vaccinated to unvaccinated and seems to argue vaccinated comes up better. If you know of another one, please supply a citation.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2014 at 15:14 #

        Let’s see: you’ve become obsessed with this post, created a new name and blog and keep coming back.

        So, when will you start speaking at the credulous conventions? Health freedom expos only require that you pay your fee and show up to talk.

      • Chris March 8, 2014 at 17:20 #

        Oh, boy. Your cute little graphic is comparing a real study with a bit of nonsense thunk up by a homeopath. See more here:

        “one in rural Guinea-Bissau in the 1990′s[23],”

        Along with actually taking a self-selected internet survey by a homeopath, that is also hilarious. it is a classic case of comparing apples with petroleum products. Let us look at that country:

        Some population statistics:

        Maternal mortality rate:

        790 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)
        country comparison to the world: 7

        Infant mortality rate:
        total: 92.66 deaths/1,000 live births
        country comparison to the world: 5
        male: 102.42 deaths/1,000 live births
        female: 82.61 deaths/1,000 live births (2013 est.)

        Life expectancy at birth:
        total population: 49.5 years
        country comparison to the world: 221
        male: 47.53 years
        female: 51.52 years (2013 est.)

        Compare that with the CIA World Factbook for the USA:

        Maternal mortality rate:
        21 deaths/100,000 live births (2010)
        country comparison to the world: 137

        Infant mortality rate:
        total: 5.9 deaths/1,000 live births
        country comparison to the world: 174
        male: 6.55 deaths/1,000 live births
        female: 5.22 deaths/1,000 live births (2013 est.)

        Life expectancy at birth:
        total population: 78.62 years
        country comparison to the world: 51
        male: 76.19 years
        female: 81.17 years (2013 est.)

        So this sentence: “In rural Guinea-Bisseau, scientists polled 15,351 mothers of 6 month olds to see which infants were vaccinated, and then came back a year later to see who was still alive. Kids who’d gotten at least one vaccine had a relative mortality of .74 compared to kids who’d gotten none.”

        Makes no sense claiming it is proof there is something wrong with the American pediatric schedule when infant and child mortality is some much higher than the USA.

        Please, please, move to Guinea-Bissau with all of your children and live on the economy. Then you would not have to worry about “chronic disease”, because something worse will befall your family’s health.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 8, 2014 at 18:01 #

        I assume he didn’t also cite the results from Papua New Guinea?

        Routine immunizations are effective in reducing overall mortality in young children in an area of high mortality. In particular, DTP, whether considered separately or in addition to BCG, was associated with a lowering of overall mortality, in contrast to findings reported from Guinea-Bissau.

        Or the work by the same author as the Guinea-Bissau paper (Peter Aaby) who finds that measles vaccination not only is associated with lower mortality, but that the association was not limited to the prevention of measles: ” The vaccine was protective against measles death throughout the study, but it also had a marked effect against other causes of death, particularly diarrhoea and oedema.”

        He sees benefits not on in Africa but in Bangladesh.

        I.e. the gentleman commenting here wants to report that he can only find one class of information (that which suggests vaccines are dangerous) when the counter arguments are easily found.

      • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 18:55 #

        Thanks much for the citations. If you find any other relevant ones, please pass along.

      • Chris March 8, 2014 at 18:16 #

        Is it the same gentleman who claimed problems with a group of studies, when his comments had nothing to do at all with their content? It was like he was reading something completely different, and refused to believe he was wrong.

        As Dr. Crislip would say: “he flabbered my gaster” by citing the self-selected online survey by a homeopath.

        He illustrates one of the biggest problems when engineers try to do science. Engineers and computer scientists want to end with a certain outcome, so they work and choose those elements to get that outcome. That does not work in science. You cannot ignore the stuff that does not fit your conclusion.

      • Chris March 8, 2014 at 19:43 #

        “Thanks much for the citations. If you find any other relevant ones, please pass along.”

        There is a list of several studies that would be of interest at Catharina’s and Science Mom’s blog. Unfortunately I have noticed WordPress blogs will not permit me to post its URL (it started with the Science Based Medicine blog). It is the “Just the Vax” blog, and the title is: “75 studies that show no link between vaccines and autism.”

        Also, a new economic study has been released:
        Economic Evaluation of the Routine Childhood Immunization Program in the United States, 2009

        There is lots more that can be found by searching the PubMed index. Some that even go back a full century: A STATISTICAL STUDY OF MEASLES (1914)

        The trick is to look at the whole body of studies by qualified and reputable researchers. By definition of “qualified” this eliminates studies by homeopaths, engineers, geologist, journalists, lawyers and business majors. That last “This Week in Virology” podcast (TWiV 274: Data dump) has at about the one hour mark a very pointed discussion of a letter from “Martin” about a paper by Shaw and Tomljenovic. Go give it a listen at Twiv.tv.

      • natphilosopher March 8, 2014 at 20:05 #

        Thanks. So far as I can tell, none of the 75 studies address the question of whether injected aluminum adjuvants cause autism or brain damage. There are definitely a lot of studies arguing MMR doesn’t cause autism. Note that MMR is given to toddlers not neonates and doesn’t contain adjuvants.

        I may comment on one or two, though, that might be misunderstood in the way the Stefano study results are sometimes misrepresented.

      • Chris March 8, 2014 at 22:56 #

        “.So far as I can tell, none of the 75 studies address the question of whether injected aluminum adjuvants cause autism or brain damage.”

        So what? Neither does the above article. A person who takes a self-selected internet survey by a homeopath seriously is not one who demonstrates critical thinking skills.

        Now go list to this podcast starting about the one hour mark, where is does address the aluminum adjuvant issue:

      • Chris March 9, 2014 at 02:09 #

        By the way, before you decide aluminum adjuvants in vaccine cause neurological damage, you must first show that there is actual neurological damage from vaccines.

        Right now when we we examine the evidence, there is no real causal association between vaccines and neurological issues. The science shows that the diseases cause much more damage than the vaccines.

        Just like the now vaccine preventable disease that caused seizures in my oldest child. Not a vaccine, an actual disease. Something that would happen more often if vaccination was reduced.

        The gyrations some folks go to force some kind of relationship to vaccines is ridiculous (an online survey by a homeopath? really?). This is the reason for Prof. Condit is on point, and why And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper is a perfect description of the goal shifting to yet another ingredient aluminum, after thimerosal and MMR did not pan out.

      • natphilosopher March 9, 2014 at 02:25 #

        Chris, thanks for your efforts. I’ve seen both the 75 studies and the American Academy of Pediatrics blurb before, and what struck me about them was 2 things. First, while it says “Examine the Evidence” it makes no effort whatsoever to present any of the myriad of papers critical of safety so it is not about examining the evidence or about fully informed patients, it is about advocacy. My point is, the Pediatricians have not examined the evidence or they wouldn’t be doing and saying what they are. Second, there are no papers on either list supporting the safety of either aluminum adjuvants or early vaccinations. (There are one or two that pretend to be about early vaccinations, perhaps, but if you read them its clear they aren’t really and aren’t convincing at all.)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 9, 2014 at 03:06 #

        ” My point is, the Pediatricians have not examined the evidence or they wouldn’t be doing and saying what they are.”

        With all due respect, your point is nonsense.

      • Chris March 9, 2014 at 03:56 #

        You really don’t get it. You can’t go around asking about aluminum in vaccines causing damaging until after you show vaccines cause damage. That has not been done.

        You complain that “Pediatricians have not examined the evidence”, yet use as references the following as references:

        2] Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA. Do aluminum vaccine adjuvants contribute to the rising prevalence of autism? J Inorg Biochem. 2011 Nov;105(11):1489-99

        [22] http://vaccineinjury.info/results-unvaccinated/results-illnesses.html

        [23] http://www.bmj.com/content/321/7274/1435 Routine vaccinations and child survival: follow up study in Guinea-Bissau, West Africa Commentary: an unexpected finding that needs confirmation or rejection BMJ 2000; 321:1435 Ines Kristensen, Peter Aaby, Henrik Jensen.

        Those are ridiculous. The fact you don’t understand that after being told multiple times why they are nonsense says much about your very closed mind.

  11. jasoa March 24, 2014 at 19:57 #

    I didnt even read the whole article… but I call bullshit… philipines is less hygienic then say australia, australian kids are more likely to be overall healthy and nutritious and recover from illnesses quicker then philipuno kids. So if your saying philipino kids who get vaccined are smarter its probably just because their unvacvinated and unhealthy peers are out of school sick for longer periods because of their lack of nutrition and healthy food… so when they do get a flu its takes them ages to get iver it anyway. I take 2 days to get over the one flu ive had as an adult… my friends are constantly sick… the difference? I eat healthy they eat maccas and drink alcohol. Oh but they get their shots!!! I dont get flu shots and im healthier then they are. Eat healthy and your body can fight off normal child hood disease easily…
    Its so clear that the pharma companies are loving this… trillion dollar industry and then the rise in athsma, diabetes, behavoiral problems in kids they get from the vaccines are raking them in even more money!! If you guys are too dumb to think the government cares more about you then the billions they make every year from this then you just make sure you get your yearly shot, and enjoy your weekly trips to the chemist… oh yeah and if the government really cared about us wouldnt theh be making alcohol, fast food and ciggarettes illegal? Nope why? Because well pay anything to live and as long as we are willing to harm our bodies first and seatch for solutions later the government is gonna be rich making money from tax and then through big pbarma companies when you yry quit smoking or go on speed weight loss drugs.
    Arent vacc almost mandatory in america?
    Ive met some prettu fucking dumb yanks!!!

  12. scott July 28, 2014 at 05:35 #

    CDC refuses do to a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study on Autism because they know the answer… In a recent study by the CDC, it looked at children aged 2 to 24 months and to compare health care utilization rates between undervaccinated and age-appropriately vaccinated children. Would you imagine that the undervaccinated group had less medial problems, but was framed (without supporting evidence) that it was because of increased use of holistic medicine in that group. What do you suppose the CDC would give for it’s rationale should the undervaccinated child have MORE medical problems in this vaccine study?

    Stony Brook University, NY looked at the Hep B vaccine specifically and compared those who got it to those that did not. It found a statistical correlation between Autism and the 3 shot series starting on day 1 of life a 3 fold increase – Legally, in US courts, 2 fold is causative.

    the CDC recommends 36, an increase of 260% since 1983. Yet, no studies have ever been done to compare neurological disorder (“ND”) rates of unvaccinated children to vaccinated children. We commissioned a national market research firm to survey more than 13,000 children in California and Oregon.

    Cal-Oregon Unvaccinated Survey

    “We surveyed over 9,000 boys in California and Oregon and found that vaccinated boys had a 155% greater chance of having a neurological disorder like ADHD or autism than unvaccinated boys.” -Generation Rescue, June 26, 2007

    • Chris July 28, 2014 at 05:49 #

      Funny how you failed to cite any of the studies you mentioned.

      One question though, if someone did decide to do a randomly chosen vax versus unvax study, and there was a large outbreak of measles. Would you tell the placebo group that they were completely unprotected? Or would you just let the kids get sick, and accept the level of disability and death as just part of the process?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 28, 2014 at 06:29 #

        The first study he mentions is almost certainly this one. A Population-Based Cohort Study of Undervaccination in 8 Managed Care Organizations Across the United States

        One wonders if he took the 5 minutes to see that the same author also published:
        Association Between Undervaccination With Diphtheria, Tetanus Toxoids, and Acellular Pertussis (DTaP) Vaccine and Risk of Pertussis Infection in Children 3 to 36 Months of Age

        which concludes

        Results Of the 72 case patients with pertussis, 12 (16.67%) were hospitalized, and 34 (47.22%) were undervaccinated for DTaP vaccine by the date of pertussis diagnosis. Of the 288 matched controls, 64 (22.22%) were undervaccinated for DTaP vaccine. Undervaccination was strongly associated with pertussis. Children undervaccinated for 3 or 4 doses of DTaP vaccine were 18.56 (95% CI, 4.92-69.95) and 28.38 (95% CI, 3.19-252.63) times more likely, respectively, to have received a diagnosis of pertussis than children who were age-appropriately vaccinated.

        Conclusions and Relevance Undervaccination with DTaP vaccine increases the risk of pertussis among children 3 to 36 months of age.

        Or this one which shows that delaying the MMR results in more seizures.

        These aren’t randomly selected papers. They are papers that cite the study he’s relying upon. I say “study he’s relying upon” loosely, as he may have only read about the study online, not read the study.

        As to my critical final statement above, since no one has ever used his email address on this site before, and he’s working from an old blog post (not a very recent one discussing a vaccinated/unvaccinated study), there is a strong probability that he is of the final category I noted. If not, I will of course apologize.

    • Chris July 28, 2014 at 05:55 #

      Well now I know why… I did a Google on “Cal-Oregon Unvaccinated Survey”… and look what I find: the Generation Rescue phone survey. It was a joke. In short never have a marketing survey company attempt science:

    • Chris July 28, 2014 at 05:56 #

      And the Stony Brook study by undergraduates is discussed here:

      Seriously, you have to do better.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 28, 2014 at 06:10 #


      I hate to put you in a category, but you are clearly in one. For years people have come here and told me old vaccine/autism talking points as though they are new. Most often, these people are doing a hit-and-run: they left a comment never to return and discuss. Others refuse to acknowledge any mistakes. They are repeating what they have read, but they have never taken the time to challenge those “facts” and do the background research on the topics raised. When presented with clear evidence that their conclusions are incorrect, they usually resort to attacks, claiming those with facts are “closed minded”.

      Let’s start with the Generation Rescue survey. Are you aware of the many flaws? Are you aware that Generation Rescue cherry picked results? There are any discussions on the web. Let’s start with this one:

      Strikingly, the survey found that while 3.01% of all vaccinated children had an ASD diagnosis, about 3.73% of all unvaccinated children did.

      That’s for both sexes. When GR only reported boys, that should have been a red flag. And 3-4% autism prevalence? Back then the prevalence of identified autism was <1%.

      It sounds like you are unaware of the vaccinated/unvaccinated study that is about to be published. Commissioned by the NIH (I think NIMH) and performed by an independent group. Doesn't sound like they are scared of the result to me. The study appears to be one comparing autism rates in younger siblings of autistic kids. This group has a higher autism risk and a lower vaccine uptake, making it easier to do a comparison.

      As to the Stony Brook study, as already noted, I've discussed that here. Actually more than once. You did notice the very small sample sizes, right? Much more, you noticed that the age ranges for those kids was such that the kids who didn't get the HepB vaccine were born before the vaccine was used in infants (about 1990), while those who got the vaccine were born (obviously) after the vaccine was available. That might be OK if autism prevalence wasn't rising, but we know it is. To do that study correctly, one should stratify by birth cohort. Basically compare the autism risk for HepB for each birth year. That way other factors which could be driving up the autism prevalence with time would not be in play.

      I will say you've picked some older and weaker of the talking points. Why is that?

      I will also say there is another category of people who come here and leave comments like yours. People who want to sharpen their debate skills on the subject. If so, get the hell off my blog. Much more, stop using my kid and other disabled kids as your hammer to attack vaccines. It's sick, actually.

  13. Jed Shlackman, MS Ed (@jedishaman) September 3, 2014 at 18:17 #

    This study proves nothing – the result is best explained by the fact that in a region where most of the population is not vaccinated this is usually due to low standards of living, where those who do get vaccinated are the ones with better access to health care, nutrition, educated parents, etc. If you did the same study in a Western nation you would probably get a different result since in the West it is often more educated people who are choosing to opt out from vaccinating their kids. In neither case would it prove that the vaccines themselves are the factor influencing cognitive performance. You would need a properly designed, controlled study to look at that question.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 3, 2014 at 20:22 #

      I think I was clear above that this is a very limited study.

      That said, there is a careful study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations in process. I expect it to be published soon.

      There are also a number of studies in various stages which are looking at the question. Given the heavy bias of the authors of those, as well as some clear examples of shoddy work, I don’t hold out much hope for anything valuable from them.

  14. John Altimus September 18, 2014 at 19:11 #

    I don’t know what the issue is here. matt debunked the Phillipines study immediately… and for obvious reasons. Here’s a few more. Are children likely to be vacinated more or less affluent? Which vaccines were administered? A schedule similar to the bloated USA schedule or a more reasonable Norwegian schedule?
    After debenking the schedule Matt makes up his own reasons for why the conclusion of the study is correct, despite the terribly poor design and conduct. Matt? Are you showing a little bias here in favor of vaccinating?
    Why are you wasting everyone’s time with that non-scientific and terrible study?

    And chris – You said “By the way, before you decide aluminum adjuvants in vaccine cause neurological damage, you must first show that there is actual neurological damage from vaccines.” Really? Just read vaccine side effects. Look at how many kids have been awarded damages for vaccine-caused brain damage. Why do you make such an easily debenked statement?

    Chris said “Right now when we we examine the evidence, there is no real causal association between vaccines and neurological issues. The science shows that the diseases cause much more damage than the vaccines.”
    If the diseases cause brain damage why wouldn’t live vaccines also cause brain damage. they do, you know. It is proved and it is obvious. what’s your bias in this issue? Why would you make such a nonsense statement?

    Then you said “Just like the now vaccine preventable disease that caused seizures in my oldest child. Not a vaccine, an actual disease. Something that would happen more often if vaccination was reduced.”. Wel if you are going to bring your child into this issue, then what disease did he/she get? Why did the disease cause seizures in your child and not in the vast majority of children who get the disease?

    You make statements trying to make a point, but you don’t explain or go into any depth that would get to the real issues here. Such as not fully eplaining what happened to your child and what was different about your child that allowed an apparentl ordinary common disease to cause seizures.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 18, 2014 at 19:37 #

      John Altimus asks: “Why are you wasting everyone’s time with that non-scientific and terrible study?”

      If you read the article above: “The study highlights many of the difficulties in doing a vaccinated/unvaccinated population comparison: how to control for confounds. ”

      Should I put that in bold? Italics? Should I repeat it multiple times? I ask this because you are not the first person to miss the obvious.

      As to “Matt makes up his own reasons for why the conclusion of the study is correct”. Perhaps you should read again the sentence I quote above. This time put it in bold, flashing letters, italics and whatever else will make it stand out. Because by skipping over that it is your bias that is showing, not mine.

      Of course when you start your comment with “bloated USA schedule” one doesn’t have to do much interpretation to see you are clearly biased heavily against vaccines.

      Thanks for reading. Perhaps you could find more articles here of interest as well? There is an independent group doing a vaccinated/unvaccinated comaprison study. Should be published shortly. With your clear bias, I suspect you will “debunk” that study if it comes to the wrong conclusion, ignoring what is actually written. How can I draw such a conclusion? Because you just jumped to your own conclusion here while ignoring the whole point of the article above.

      • John Altimus September 18, 2014 at 20:11 #

        Getting kind of nasty and jumping to many wrong conlcusions. Why are you so sensitive to criticism?
        What is the point of the article that I am ignoring?

        You quote the article “While our results are statistically significant, the sample size is relatively small due to the restriction of the sample to the common support. In addition, the matching of treatment and control groups may be imperfect if there are unobserved confounding factors that affect both vaccination and cognitive development. We therefore do not see our results as definitive. However, the results do however highlight the potential significance of vaccination as a human capital investment and suggest that further research in this area is warranted.”

        Then YOU said “if there is a real correlation, is it the vaccination itself (unlikely in my opinion),”.
        So you disagree with the authors’ opinion, come up with your own, assume that’s correct and go on your way.

        If a disease is going to affect cognitive development then which diseases are we talking about?
        What was wrong with the children whose cognitive development was affected… or are you implying that ALL children who get a wild disease become cognitively impaired?
        Whatever your position is, please post your evidence.

        regarding my comment on the “bloated Usa schedule”, how does that show bias? USA kids get more vaccines than any other child population in the world, yet of all the developed nations, USA kids don’t fare so well in schoold achievements when comparing to other nations kids. So if vaccines help brain development, as you are saying, why are USA kids doing so poorly, internationally speaking?

        That little contradiction is just more evidence against the srudy you originally posted and your conclusion that preventing disease leads to better cognitive development. Of course, there are confounds, like YOU said., not only in that study but USA kids as well

        BTW I paid a little bit better attention to my spelling this time, so you don’t have to make a smart-Alec remark about it.
        Really? you want’ to bring up typos to make a point? Is grammar next?

        And again, why are being so nasty?
        And again, what are you wasting time with this study?
        There’s more important issues to tackle, and I hope you have better science, or maybe just plain old science, because that study was not science or medicine or even good statistics.
        It’s nonsense to bring it up!!!!!!!!

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2014 at 04:44 #

        Nasty? It is easy to avoid discussion like that. Nothing here was nasty. You missed the point. And now you want me to continue to defend against your straw man attack.

        I couldn’t make the point of the article more clear if I spelled it out for you. Which I did.

        I wish you well. There are many sites where you can find like minded vaccine antagonistic people to tell all about how your straw man version of me is wrong.

        As to the old internet debate trick of “your spelling isn’t good therefore your point is wrong”. OK. That became an obvious diversion in the early days of Usenet.

      • Riyano December 23, 2015 at 03:32 #

        Spent the last week nursing a flu paeintt. Despite her getting the shot, she was incapacitated, and developed bronchitis as a complication.Me, I didn’t get the shot because I invariably have an unpleasant reaction (blacked out the last one I got in 2009). I must have gotten the bug to some extent because I have had headaches over the week, but not much else. I guess it depends on how well you match up against the flu as well as how well the vaccine matches against it.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 18, 2014 at 19:44 #

      Funny how so many skip over this: “we asked for a comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations, but not that comparison” and don’t see how it had a double meaning. (1) “we don’t want a comparison that shows vaccines are beneficial” is obvious. (2) “That study is weak.” should be obvious had you read the article carefully.

      The fact of the matter is that the study discussed above is as good or better than most of those which are used to “prove” vaccines cause autism. That’s a more subtle message above, and I don’t blame you for missing it.

      Next time, read more carefully. Look for words like “if”. As in ” if there is a real correlation”. Which I see now is poorly worded. There is a real correlation. The question is whether this correlation would stand up to a more controlled study. But I suspect the message got through in that short sentence. Even though you ignored it.

      • John Altimus September 18, 2014 at 20:21 #

        WOW!!! More nastiness.
        Why don’t you address anything that I have said here?

        So now you say “the study discussed above is as good or better than MOST of those which are used to “prove” vaccines cause autism.”?
        What “vaccines cause autism” studies are you talking about?

        So you admit there are some studies better than this one, that PROVE vaccines cause autism.

        Or was that another error on your part?

        I think you should think a little bit more before you post.

      • John Altimus September 18, 2014 at 20:36 #

        matt, I would suggest you read your posts more carefully before you post them. What are you trying to start an argument with these nasty belittling insulting comments?

        I repeatedly stated how YOU debunked the study from the very beginning, using the study’s authors admissions of problems and YOU disagreeing with the study’s correlations.

        I didn’t miss your ending redundant remark… but the double meaning had nothing to do with the study being weak, as you claim.

        Here’s your last two original paragraphs
        “So, when Jenny McCarthy or others say, “I’d take measles any day over autism”, aside from making the huge mistake of assuming that autism and vaccination are linked, she may be saying “I’d take a half-standard-deviation drop in cognition over vaccination”.

        I await the inevitable, “we asked for a comparison of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations, but not that comparison”.”

        In context, it is OBVIOUS that the “inevitable” that you a re “awaiting” is for what you claim is the anti-vaccinationists (the “we” in your final sentence) whining that they don’t want “that comparison”.

        please don’t try to imply your sentences meant anything else,. You should be embarassed.

        Now where are those studies you claim that “prove vaccines cause autism” that are better than the study you originally posted.

        remember you said this “the study discussed above is as good or better than MOST of those which are used to “prove” vaccines cause autism.”
        Please post those studies you stated “prove” vaccines cause autism and are better than the phillipine study you posted.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) September 19, 2014 at 04:45 #

        You seem quite worked up by this.

        Have a better day tomorrow.

    • Chris September 19, 2014 at 03:49 #

      John Altimus”. “If the diseases cause brain damage why wouldn’t live vaccines also cause brain damage. they do, you know. It is proved and it is obvious. what’s your bias in this issue? Why would you make such a nonsense statement?”

      But how much damage and with what frequency do the vaccines cause damage versus the diseases? Measles causes encephalitis in one out of a thousand cases, so how often does the MMR cause encephalitis? Provide the PubMed indexed studies from reputable qualified researchers to support your answer.

      My personal anecdote is not data. Of course most children do not get seizures from a disease, but one out of a thousand is enough when there are four million born each year. The issue is relative risk. So what carries more risk?

      • John Altimus August 23, 2015 at 20:49 #

        At least you admit that vaccines cause brain damage, but your case is that the wild measles causes more damage. Where is your evidence?

        No one is actively looking for and counting the injuries and deaths vaccinations cause, so NO ONE knows how much death and injury vaccines cause.
        If wild measles causes encephalitis in a child, that shows the child’s immune system wasn’t protecting him. A healthy child doesn’t get encephalitis from wild measles.
        A child who could be seriously injured or killed by wild measles is probably at risk for injury or death from the vaccine (which has live measles in it).

        MMR with three live virus is probably more a risk than just wild measles to a kid who has health issues… plus all the other chemicals in the vaccine.
        If you have immune problems you shouldn’t be vaccinated, because that is risky.

        You and Matt are supposed to have the answers here, so you should supply the studies to back you up as well, if that is going to be the standard you set here.

        Where did you get your “one in a thousand” number for instance?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 25, 2015 at 02:02 #

        Ah, the old “they deserved to die. Their immune systems weren’t up to the task of fighting off diseases”.

        People die from diseases. People die from measles. In the first world. Today. Trying to avoid that fact with claims that “that shows the child’s immune system wasn’t protecting him. A healthy child doesn’t get encephalitis from wild measles.” is nonsense.

        Show your evidence. Show that a healthy child can’t be harmed by measles infections. Present data. Papers.

        You can’t. Because you are wrong. You try to avoid the fact that measles is a killing disease. You downplay the harm. And that is what exposes you as ignorant or a liar.

  15. Zerra November 8, 2014 at 04:14 #

    Lost my child to spinal meniigitis he went to college and didn’t vaccinate .would like to find support from other moms&dads

  16. temora2014 November 28, 2014 at 20:13 #

    Please don’t anyone jump down my throat because I am just now researching this issue and giving serious consideration to both sides of the debate but, (putting aside the controversy regarding who funded the research and the questionable sample size), is it not more likely that vaccinated children in a less economically privileged country would do better, academically,
    than those who are unvaccinated anyway? One has to assume that, even if it didn’t cost these parents money to vaccinate their children, (and I would be interested to know whether that was or was not the case), that these parents would be amongst the most likely subset to pro-actively promote the intellectual
    development of their offspring? My thinking is that, since, in less developed countries, where the threat of infection is far greater and the scope for accessing information which in any way contradicts government/conventional international wisdom/findings/advice is less profuse, it would be the ‘upwardly mobile educated elite’ that are aware of the ‘benefits’ of having their children vaccinated… and that, since they, themselves, are educated, they are more likely to place a value on education and make a point of supporting their child’s educational development, (helping with homework, encouraging study, promoting the benefits of a good education/revision, prioritising a child’s study over their ability to subsidise the family income etc.), than another parent who, perhaps, has had little education themselves and is too busy putting food on the table to focus on how their child/ren are performing academically. I am a mother to newborns so I have yet found the time to read this particular study – but I’d be interested to know whether the parents were all roughly matched with regards to socio-economic backgrounds?

    • Brian Deer November 30, 2014 at 09:32 #

      It’s odd, but perhaps not surprising in the circumstances of the denialist’s acitivites, that people overlook the fact that, with regard to MMR, a vaccinated – unvaccinated study has been done. Bigtime. The Madsen study was precisely that.

      • Michael Polidori January 12, 2016 at 17:27 #

        The Madsen study has been proved to be fraudulent. Plus one of the main researchers in those studies by Madsen et al (Poul Thorsen) stole millions of dollars from the CDC funding of that study.

        Brian should be embarrassed to bring that debunked study up again and again… but it just shows how empty and bereft of science-based evidence the vaccine industry argument is.

        As always,
        For the protection of children,
        In the interests of truth and science,
        Michael Polidori

      • novalox January 12, 2016 at 18:00 #


        Again posting more lies? Why should anyone be surprised by you at this point, especially since you seem to only be interested in making innocent children suffer from completely preventable diseases.

        You only wish you could protect children, and your utter ignorance of basic science will only hurt children. If you have children, I pity the suffering that they will endure by your hands.

      • Michael Polidori January 12, 2016 at 18:13 #

        Nice to see “Brian Deer” once again showing his complete support of the drug industry, as he has been doing since the mid 1990s.
        Here’s some of his connections – Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, Medico Legal Investigations (hired by the ABPI to investigate doctors who opposed the drug industry agendas – was still working for them during his initial investigations of Dr Andrew Wakefield), Sunday Times (Owner James Murdoch a multi-year paid non-executive director at MMR maker Glaxo Smith Kline) and published in the medical journal BMJ (chief editor Fiona Godlee forced to admit [by Dr Andrew Wakefield, no less!!] that the journal receives millions in funding from MMR makers Glaxo and Merck).

        And novalox, who attacks me and brings my children into the mix as well… a factless personal attack designed to enrage me rather than discuss the issues I have brought up.
        Nothing more than I expect from you novalox.

        As Always,
        For the protection of children,
        In the interests of truth and science,
        Michael Polidori

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 12, 2016 at 22:14 #

        Ironic that after a factless personal attack you accuse others of the same.

        As already pointed out, you were informed that your participation here is no longer welcome. It takes a lot to achieve that and you were given a lot of leeway. And you abused it.

        Once again, Goodbye Mr. Polidori.

      • Lawrence January 12, 2016 at 19:15 #

        “Proved to be fraudulent?” Exactly where was the science shown to be wrong?

      • Chris January 12, 2016 at 19:42 #

        Again with the necrotizing of old posts! Mr. Polidori. There was a reason you were banned from LeftBrainRightBrain

      • brian January 12, 2016 at 19:46 #

        Michael Polidori wrote, “The Madsen study has been proved to be fraudulent.”

        Madsen et al. concluded “The discontinuation of thimerosal-containing vaccines in Denmark in 1992 was followed by an increase in the incidence of autism.”

        Remarkably, that conclusion is supported by the evidence that later became available from other countries in which exposure to thimerosal-containing vaccines was eliminated or dramatically reduced, including where influenza vaccines containing thimerosal are not administered to children or pregnant women.

  17. Roger Kulp November 29, 2014 at 05:57 #

    A possible explanation for vaccine mediated regressions,and autoimmune medical comorbidities in autism.This study has been completely ignored,and might provide answers for many families.

    Immune Insults in Autism – A New Subset ( ASD -Inflammatory Subtype)

    Cytokine profiles by peripheral blood monocytes are associated with changes in behavioral symptoms following immune insults in a subset of ASD subjects: an inflammatory subtype?

    • Narad November 30, 2014 at 01:23 #

      This study has been completely ignored

      That may be because it’s atrociously written* or because its “hypothesis” involves “investigating” a category (“ASD-IS”) that itself hasn’t been shown to meaningfully exist in the first place.

      and might provide answers for many families.

      In the sense that everybody suddenly had a “mito disorder” after the Poling case, sure. This appears to be a cottage industry, so there’s also SPAD.

      In the real world, though, no, it doesn’t even provide robust results, much less “answers.”

      Immune Insults in Autism – A New Subset ( ASD -Inflammatory Subtype)

      This mangled version of the title seems to be making the rounds, though.

      * Seriously, “IL-1ß“? I haven’t seen that boner since the Th1Th2 troll whomped up a new ID at MDC.

      • Narad November 30, 2014 at 01:30 #

        The error bars in Tables 4 and 5 are not to be missed.

  18. Science Mom November 30, 2014 at 17:18 #

    The error bars in Tables 4 and 5 are not to be missed.

    I wonder if that is why the table was presented as a text table rather than a histogram with error bars. Nice catch.

  19. Not buying it January 24, 2015 at 06:35 #

    Considering that the vaccinated group in this study represents those who have the money for and access to vaccinations that poor rural populations do not, this would rank in the correlation does not equal causation category. It would stand to reason that because of this socio-economic difference, the vaccinated children have parents who are educated and financially able to do so. Parents who are educated and have the financial means to do so, make sure that their children are well educated. The variables here are completely skewed. Nice try though.

    • Chris January 24, 2015 at 07:19 #

      Which is exactly what the article on the top of the page said.

      • Cris March 10, 2015 at 15:07 #

        Then why even post this paper titled as it is? Obviously for attention. We already knew that children that come from higher education and income typically do better on tests.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 10, 2015 at 19:36 #

        I take it you haven’t read past the title to the discussion of how they treated the possible confounds?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) January 24, 2015 at 15:25 #

      This little paper has gathered more interest than I ever expected.

      Yep, this paper is limited. But as good or better than the papers that promote the idea that vaccines cause autism.

      It is nice to know that those who are antagonistic towards vaccines can be critical of a study when they choose. The question is why they don’t choose to be critical of the papers that support their position.

    • natphilosopher January 24, 2015 at 15:33 #

      You missed the point. That study is actually quite informative. They started with a group that was the top 85 kids out of 2000, and compared them to the bottom of the group. (They could have divided more reasonably, which would also have given them better statistics, but chose not to.) So they started with a vaccinated group about 2.5 standard deviations ahead, and they were taller at birth than the unvaccinated. They wound up.5 standard deviations ahead, and no taller. So it seems possible the vaccines stunted their growth, and the study is good evidence it they made them dumber. This is analogous to parents who each got 750’s on their SAT’s having a vaccinated kid who got 550’s. Are they happy with this result?

  20. Cris March 10, 2015 at 14:27 #

    I’m thinking your results have more to do with the social standing of the vaccinated. Are most of the vaccinated from parents with higher education and more money in this study? I’m thinking they probably are, which would explain why the test scores are higher.

  21. eyekyu69 March 11, 2015 at 00:15 #

    Could it be that those that are able to get vaccinated in the Philippines can do so because their families are more well off? If so, then is not likely that they scored better on cognition tests because of the environment they grew up in with more resources than those who could not access vaccines?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 11, 2015 at 01:25 #

      Have you looked at the 86 comments above to see how this question has been discussed already? Or the article above?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 11, 2015 at 01:26 #

      I find it very interesting that this article has caused such a stir among those who oppose vaccines. Months later and still people can’t accept that vaccines can be good.

  22. Joe April 22, 2015 at 17:00 #

    Did they take into account the social standing and cognitive abilities of the parents in these studies. I doubt it. They know how to prove their desired result.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2015 at 17:20 #

      OK, we are up to 98 comments (including this one) on this article. Gotta love how much pushback people give to the idea that vaccines provide benefit.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) April 22, 2015 at 20:17 #

      “Did they take into account….”

      As noted many times above, the study is online. Why didn’t you find out for yourself?

  23. jan June 2, 2015 at 05:18 #

    Wow! So vaccines not only cure the world of disease but also make people smarter!? Well I am absolutely impressed by the stupidity of the person who has written an article of such shot magnitude. Good on you mate, for making the world a dumber place…. My only hope is that people who read this don’t think it’s true…

    • novalox June 2, 2015 at 05:42 #


      I see that you have no pertinent rebuttal to the arguments, instead relying on insults, which says a lot about the poverty of your argument and your character

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) June 2, 2015 at 18:57 #

      Again, amazing how challenged everyone in the vaccine-antagonistic world is with the idea that vaccines are beneficial.

      You can hope all you want. How about putting together a cogent argument and showing you came to your “hoped for” position by reasoning?

  24. Elizabeth July 22, 2015 at 16:20 #

    Well, something that is completely neglected in the study is the socio-economic status. Those who can afford vaccination in the Philippines are more likely to be able to afford good nutrition and have access to more education. Those are two known factors that improve cognitive scores. So it’s unlikely that the vaccines have anything to do with the higher scores.

    • Chris July 23, 2015 at 06:28 #

      Which has been mentioned in the article and the comments several times.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 25, 2015 at 05:17 #

      Point raised and discussed many times above.

      How much does being sick with many serious diseases affect cognitive scores?

      Why is it that a study that says that vaccines are valuable is such a challenge to accept that we are now at 105 comments on this?

      • John Altimus August 23, 2015 at 23:07 #

        another implication, without evidence – Matt equivocates being sick with an “affect [on] cognitive scores”.

        Then after Matt says how poor this study is earlier, now he says “this study says that vaccines are valuable”.
        How can Matt say the study is weak and the study doesn’t prove anything, then make this statement?

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 25, 2015 at 01:59 #

        Matt does not equivocate. Matt explains and you misinterpret what he says. Perhaps rather than trying for points in an internet debate, you could discuss?

        I doubt you will. You appear to challenged by the possibility that vaccines are beneficial.

        Vaccines save lives. That is clear and outweighs any other possible advantanges–the cognitive scores of dead people is low. Ignore that fact and try to dodge and parry in your imagined debate.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) July 28, 2015 at 19:10 #

      “Well, something that is completely neglected in the study is the socio-economic status.”

      By which you show that you didn’t read the study.

  25. Strawman October 23, 2015 at 20:40 #

    Common sense tells you that there are a lot of variables in this study. Unless these children were all clones they would have different parenting, socio-economic differences, genetic differences. The vaccinated children would be able to learn better because many probably attended school more often since they were not sickened by the mumps, chicken pox etc. It is too bad at the time our son was little that there were no vaccines for constant ear infections, (eventually had to have tubes), rotavirus (lots of that) diarrhea that burned all the way down his leg, asthma (scary), allergies (eventually had to have weekly shots) sinusitis and he even got the chicken pox even though he was vaccinated. All of these childhood illnesses were the hazards of attending preschool.

    • Chris October 24, 2015 at 18:14 #

      “It is too bad at the time our son was little that there were no vaccines for constant ear infections, (eventually had to have tubes), rotavirus (lots of that) diarrhea that burned all the way down his leg, asthma (scary), allergies (eventually had to have weekly shots) sinusitis and he even got the chicken pox even though he was vaccinated. All of these childhood illnesses were the hazards of attending preschool.”

      Same here. Our oldest son came down with that list except for the asthma and allergies, but he ended up in the hospital with croup about four times, plus the dehydration from rotavirus caused seizures with another trip to the hospital. He also got chicken pox the year before the vaccine was available, as did his sister who was then only six months old.

      You can understand why I am not fond of parents who think their children are better off with the diseases than with the vaccines.

  26. strawman January 15, 2016 at 21:44 #

    J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

    Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.

    Gallagher CM1, Goodman MS. ( Sorry but I don’t know how to post the article from pubmed.) I truly believe that vaccines are for the good of all children but is it at all possible that a rare individual could have reaction Could this be a valid study? Is anyone familiar with it? I was just wondering because 18 years ago I was wondering why a newborn would be given this since he isn’t capable yet of making antibodies and there as no indication of hepatitis in his Hx. Thanks

    • brian January 16, 2016 at 01:25 #

      I was wondering why a newborn would be given HepB vaccine] since he isn’t capable yet of making antibodies

      Of course newborns are capable of making antibodies. That’s a fortunate feature of the neonatal immune system, since newborns are exposed to a wide variety of microbes that colonize them within days of birth. It happens that although the response of newborns to HepB vaccine is not identical to the response of adults to that same vaccine, vaccinated newborns produce markedly higher serum anti-hepatitis B surface antibody titers than adults do. [Vaccine. 2004 Jan 2;22(3-4):511-9.]

      FWIW, Gallagher and Goodman demonstrated that something that became increasingly common during the study period would seem to correlate with something else that increased during the study period; cell phones and sales of organic foods come to mind–and autism and sales of organic foods seem to follow the same trend:


      • strawman January 16, 2016 at 14:58 #

        “A baby’s immune system is not fully developed until he/she is about six months-old. In the meantime, pregnant mothers pass immunoglobulin antibodies from their bloodstream” from wellness.com

      • strawman January 16, 2016 at 15:13 #

        ” Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life. Non-Hispanic white boys were 64% less likely to have autism diagnosis relative to nonwhite boys. Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk. ” From J Toxicol Environ Health A. 2010;73(24):1665-77. doi: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317.

        Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
        Yes, I understand correlation-causation but this was done I believe in 2010 and like most studies just out there with no follow up. A waste of time and money but interesting. I think that the cause of autism actually occurs during the first 3 months of pregnancy.

    • Chris January 16, 2016 at 03:29 #

      For it is worth, LBRB has articles posted about the HepB studies by Gallagher and Goodman. I linked to two of them, but those comments ended up in the ether.

      I hate to say it: but search for those in Google. I really tried to post them, but for some reason they never appeared.

      • Strawman January 27, 2016 at 19:40 #

        Since the hepb study was done incorrectly and that is why it has been ignored than why hasn’t it been repeated. There could possibly be a grain of truth. Why don’t the people of science believe parents who have noticed changes in their child. Then these patents would not be going to quacks who tell them what they want to hear. I mentioned repeating a study because the children of the 90’s are still alive. There must be a communality that occurred during pregnancy or shortly thereafter. I don’t mean the stupid theories mentioned by Emily willingham

      • Chris January 27, 2016 at 20:35 #

        Here, let me help you since my posts never showed up: that google search. Try reading the two main articles written about Gallagher’s research.

      • Strawman January 27, 2016 at 23:36 #

        Thanks Chris. I just read your post. I will try to forget about vaccines. No point

    • brian January 16, 2016 at 16:59 #

      Strawman, you seem to be confusing “not fully developed” with “nonfunctional.” Note that the human brain isn’t fully developed until early in the third decade of life, but it works pretty well earlier.

      Neonates develop the capacity to respond to foreign antigens before they are born. B and T cells are present by 14 weeks’ gestation and express an enormous array of antigen-specific receptors. . . . The neonate is capable of mounting a protective immune response to vaccines within hours of birth. For example, neonates born to mothers with hepatitis B virus infection mount an excellent protective immune response to hepatitis B vaccine given at birth, even without additional use of hepatitis B virus-specific immunoglobulin. [Pediatrics. 2003 Dec;112(6 Pt 1):1394-7.]

  27. Tina February 4, 2016 at 21:05 #


    This is a better study, the one you shared left me with questions, where’s the method? Where are the results? Where can I find te ages of the kids being tested? Basically, where is the rest of the study? How can it be properly analyzed, and scrutinized if all that is shared is the abstract?
    I need numbers.
    Thank you

    • Chris February 4, 2016 at 21:15 #

      The problems with this particular study were noted in Matt’s article above, and have been thoroughly discussed over the past two years in the comments. You might try reading them.

      Now the one you linked to was discussed here over seven years ago. It is a phone survey, not a scientific study:

      It did not actually prove what Handley thought it proved.

      Both of the links at the bottom of that article are broken. One can probably be found on the Wayback machine, but the other one is:

    • Chris February 4, 2016 at 21:17 #

      My comment is in moderation. That Generation Rescue “study” was a phone survey. It was discussed on this blog over seven years ago. Look for it.

  28. strawman February 6, 2016 at 19:55 #

    An article regarding the Zika virus which might cause havoc for fetal development as rubella did in the 60’s, ” Dr. William Schaffner, chairman of the Department of Preventive Medicine at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, says he is optimistic that a Zika vaccine is on the horizon. “The technology and the science are much advanced,” he says. ”

    But it will inevitably take a long time to develop a Zika vaccine. Even if one is made in much the same way as earlier successes – by taking live virus and weakening it in the laboratory – far stricter regulatory and safety requirements now in place will add years to the research effort, Offit says.

    “In the 1960s, you could test a vaccine in 2,000 to 3,000 children,” he says. “The consent form was a 3-by-5 inch card.” (yes, using people that lived in institutions)

    From reading this one might think the anti-vaccine people might see the benefits of vaccines. But no. Quite a few commenters think that the Zika virus is a government conspiracy.

    • Krishna Murphy March 4, 2016 at 22:23 #

      Zika is a PR campaign – the virus itself is not dangerous, but the experimental vaccine that’s “almost ready to test” is likely to be. Injecting toxins is NEVER going to produce health!

      • brian March 5, 2016 at 00:52 #

        Krishna Murphy, it must be difficult for people with essentially no understanding of science or medicine to keep up with the medical and scientific literature. Good luck with that.

        FWIW, CDC reported that of nine US citizens who were infected with Zika virus while pregnant, two miscarried, one produced a microcephalic child, one aborted a microcephalic fetus, another chose to abort a fetus that has not been disclosed to be normal or microcephalic, two produced an anatomically normal child (although Zika virus clearly could produce myriad profound effects that are not apparent at birth in addition to gross microcephaly), and two pregnancies are continuing. If you like those odds, you might want to contact the pregnant, Zika virus-infected woman who lives near me and assure her that Zika virus is not dangerous and that the current interest in the virus is simply the result of PR campaign.

        However, you or more astute readers might be interested in this recent report that suggests that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is associated with grave outcomes, including fetal death, placental insufficiency, fetal growth restriction, and CNS injury:


      • Krishna Murphy March 10, 2016 at 03:37 #

        Brian, it appears you have not READ the study you cited. I stand by my earlier assessment.

      • Lawrence March 10, 2016 at 23:59 #

        Krishna – you appear not to have read this study, or the new series of findings that do link Zika to a variety of problems during pregnancy.

        And any Zika vaccine is still years away from being utilized….

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) March 17, 2016 at 23:05 #

        “Brian, it appears you have not READ the study you cited. I stand by my earlier assessment.”

        You stand by an unsupported assertion.

        In other words, you did ZERO to back up your claim and now refuse to actually discuss it.

        Pretty typical of many who oppose vaccines. I bet you even consider yourself “educated” on vaccines. Pretty ironic.

  29. Marcellus March 4, 2016 at 17:34 #

    Gone are the days of one way marketing or merely just posting comments about your site or other related topics.

    The trends in this industry change and new developments take place only when Google comes up with some novel feature that ends up
    breaking every site’s SEO and compels them to consider a
    change in their current content presentation in order to do
    well. Unlike TV, radio and other traditional marketing channels that need big
    budgets to be effective, SEO can be cost effective.
    This mode of advertisement was faster than the earlier ones and reached more people but it had its own limitations.

  30. Thaddeus March 4, 2016 at 17:42 #

    Although Yahoo isn’t the biggest, or the highest ranking search engine on the internet, it is still one of the most essential,
    and if you want use search engine optimization and promotion as
    a main technique in your marketing arsenal, you unquestionably need
    to get listed here. The process of SEO is the series of steps that are undertaken to
    ensure that a website is visible among internet users to an optimal level.
    But it is extremely important that anyone looking to hire an SEO
    professional be aware of the differences. Tests with a model like Page – Rank have shown that the system is not infallible.

  31. bill s July 23, 2016 at 07:03 #

    Where the vac/unvac populations mixed in with each other well or did the vac group live in better school districts while the unvac group were out in the back woods or ghetto? where their families of similar financial backgrounds?

  32. Marvin bastella August 26, 2016 at 11:34 #

    Almost gives all the information, you forgot to mention that in order to go to school in the philippines (where I’m from), vaccinations are a requirement. So the study is comparing educated vs uneducated. This has nothing to do with vaccinations. Also check the side affects the children there suffered. Most of the time when the United States needs to test a vaccine, they test it on children in other countries, gratis of the bill and Linda Gates foundation. Look into it yourself, don’t take my word for it. And thanks for reading my comment.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) August 27, 2016 at 22:49 #

      I appreciate your comment but find it difficult to agree with.

      Perhaps you could supply evidence that vaccination is required for school. More to the point of the study discussed above, evidence that vaccination was required for school in the Philippines in 1984, when the kids in this study were being vaccinated.

      If your assertion is that the study is comparing educated vs uneducated children, could you explain why the disparity isn’t much larger between the two groups? One of the measures was a math test. Another a reading test. Those without education would have failed completely.

      Would you care to comment on whether the researchers should have included the large number of children who died of measles who were in the original study group? For them, non vaccination resulted in a significant hit to their cognitive ability. Yet they were excluded from the study.

      I assume you didn’t read the study.

  33. Mpthegreek October 13, 2017 at 14:03 #

    In such a study chances are great that the vaccinated children were of a higher social class and the UNVACCINATED were of a lower social class. Therefore educational opportunities are greater for the vaccinated class and lower for the UNVACCINATED class. Including differences of intelligence of parents. Not being able to get your child vaccinated and being against vaccination are very different. Studies have shown UNVACCINATED children get sick less and that mercury which is still used in some vaccines lower i.q.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) December 6, 2017 at 20:25 #

      ” Studies have shown UNVACCINATED children get sick less”

      There are a few bad studies which make this claim. It’s sad that you lack the ability to see them for just how bad they are. Sad because you go out on the internet with your arrogant ignorance and spout nonsense because of it.

      Vaccines prevent disease. To say anything else is simple denialism. Right up there with there was no landing on the moon.

    • Krishna Murphy November 20, 2018 at 01:03 #

      I agree with the comment from Mpthegreek, pointing out that this is NOT a properly-controlled study – in fact it’s quite reverse. One cannot view the results as if the groups (vaccinated vs. not) were somehow magically the result of an unbiased double-blind assignment by the researchers. No such effort has been made here, and one must take extreme care in regard to use of such a study, even if the “outcome measure (IQ)” is properly assessed – which it most assuredly is not.

      It is tempting to make the assumption which is most commonly held, that the IQ score is a valid measure of a GENERAL intellectual capacity. What is entirely missing from that usual assessment of a result is what comes from a much BROADER study of intellectual capacity for achievement and neurological functioning. And without doing that level of testing, the MEANING of a “high IQ score” is virtually obliterated. The only meaningful interpretation of such an outcome is that further testing is required – not to refine or verify the “highness” of the score, but to find the overall pattern of neurological functioning, HIGH or LOW in specific capacities.

      The reality is that the immune system activation that comes as a consequence of the toxic content of the vaccine can and often does have an effect of IMPAIRING neurological development, but it is disproportionate by nature. This means that a person with a high score will usually have the observable enhancement of function in one area, e.g. spatial relationships or mathematical reasoning, but will have a major LOSS of function in other areas that are not measured by IQ tests. One very common pattern identified long ago that fits this is Asperger Syndrome (though that term has foolishly been deprecated), as well as “autistic savant.”

      Parent are tempted to deliberately choose such a procedure, perhaps for the perceived benefit of a high IQ. The architects of the vaccination regime have deliberately obfuscated these long-known details and focused attention entirely on the false premise that there is actually a tangible benefit – e.g. the mythological immune system enhancement.

      In reality, vaccination nearly always produces HARM, especially if it’s not the first one or it’s administered in combination, of either a temporary or more long-term nature, in multiple areas of physiological and intellectual functioning. It’s literally a “lose-lose” proposition; what SEEMS to be a benefit (high IQ) being a misleading perception, while the risk of detrimental effects is so high as to constitute a virtual CERTAINTY – IF a proper overall assessment is done, or if the vaccinated person dies (that’s always bad!)

      • Chris November 20, 2018 at 01:30 #

        “In reality, vaccination nearly always produces HARM,…”

        How does it compare to actually getting the disease? Do explain how a vaccine is worse than getting measles, mumps, diphtheria, etc. Provide actual scientific citations to support your answer by reputable, qualified researchers.

      • Krishna Murphy November 20, 2018 at 02:44 #

        In answer to the question about whether the disease is worse than the vaccine: From a CONVENTIONAL viewpoint, it depends on the vaccine. Mumps (for example) is NEVER prevented by the vaccine in use in the USA, which is actually pretty well-known. There is a major whistleblower lawsuit in progress that demonstrates (with LOTS of documentary evidence) the ENORMOUS fraud that was perpetrated by Merck’s “scientists.” It’s been literally DECADES since there was even a slight possibility of that “vaccination benefit.”

        No scientific study is required to substantiate it, it’s simply the reality, and it’s transparently obvious even to a complete fool – as long as his income or personal pride isn’t tied to it being otherwise. These are the scientists who worked in the labs where the studies were done, CONFESSING to wrongdoing.

        Regarding measles, there was NEVER, at least since before the introduction of the vaccine (the middle of the 20th century) substantial cause for anything like the hysterical panic we often see in the press about the disease. Not, that is, in a healthy, nominally-well-nourished population like the USA, where adequate home care is available (even without the specific nutritional supplementation known to be effective in healing from that, like Vitamins A and C.) More measles is actually CAUSED by vaccination and shedding than is “prevented.”

        Measles simply does not have the risk that is imputed – but the risk associated with the vaccine is undeniable. See for instance https://jeffreydachmd.com/2015/02/greater-threat-measles-measles-vaccine/ (especially the deaths vs. time charts, and which incidentally includes a link to the Merck mumps fraud case mentioned above, as well as information about the recent polio fraud in India), or the studies cited showing the BENEFITS of a measles infection at http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/unreported-health-benefits-measles (which incidentally shows some similar benefits for mumps infection.)

        What emerges from in-depth study of the topic, though, is the utter ABSURDITY of the conventional viewpoint – which presumes a priori that childhood infections are de facto dangerous and must be prevented. The reality is that, when you vaccinate, you are sacrificing health, at least long-term, in return for a short-term, partial IMITATION of genuine immunity and no benefit whatsoever to the population at large. But one cannot even GATHER the information that shows that, if the first premise of the quest for truth is that “vaccinations are safe and effective,” so I imagine you won’t be persuaded. VACCINATION IS INHERENTLY UNSAFE, and in the USA at least, that is literally the law of the land! (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf)

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 20, 2018 at 18:12 #

        Mumps (for example) is NEVER prevented by the vaccine in use in the USA, which is actually pretty well-known.

        Not well known. False. Completely fake.

        From the CDC website

        Before the U.S. mumps vaccination program started in 1967, about 186,000 cases were reported each year, but the actual number of cases was likely much higher due to underreporting. Since the pre-vaccine era, there has been a more than 99% decrease in mumps cases in the United States.

        Introduce the vaccine. Mumps drops by 99%. I’m sure you have some pseudo-science reason why there isn’t a causal effect here, but you are wrong.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 20, 2018 at 18:17 #

        You are a great example of how ignorance–and arrogance–fuels the anti-vaccine movement.

        Your claim that measles isn’t something to be concerned about is FALSE.


        Recent outbreaks of measles in France (which has good sanitation, good nutrition, good medical care) has shown a death rate of 1 in 2000.

        If that is acceptable to you, you are a cruel person, willing to sacrifice others for your belief (belief, not fact based) that vaccines are bad.

        If you deny this fact, you are simply a denialist. You refuse to accept facts that counter your beliefs.

        Classic anti-vaccine reasoning.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 26, 2018 at 18:42 #

        But, hey, if you had actual facts, you wouldn’t have to claim people are “hysterical” for recognizing that measles is a dangerous disease.

        People die from measles. The death rate in France from recent outbreaks is 1 in 2000. Is that acceptable to you? Or are you going to claim that France doesn’t have sufficient sanitation or medical care, or one of the other misinformation excuses people give for people dying from measles.

        Open your mind. Do your own research. You clearly haven’t.

      • Roger Kulp November 20, 2018 at 17:05 #

        From 2015
        “A new study suggests the measles shot comes with a bonus: By preventing that disease, the vaccine may also help your body fight off other illnesses for years.”


      • Krishna Murphy November 26, 2018 at 19:19 #

        The better “shot” is to ACTUALLY have a chance to naturally fight off the measles. The partial, temporary, imitation “immunity” conferred by a vaccine confers very little benefit.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 26, 2018 at 19:56 #

        naturally fighting off the measles means a 1 in 2000 chance of DEATH.

        And, that’s before we consider the chance of SSPS. That’s where you get a persistent measles infection of the brain and slowly and painfully die over a period of years.

        And, you gutless anti-vaccine activists never take responsibility for the harm you can cause others. What compensation to you have for people who catch measles from you or your family and suffer, are permanently harmed or die from it.

        I will answer for you–Nothing. You do nothing. You take zero responsibility for your actions. None.

        And then you go and troll disability focused websites with the hope of spreading misinformation. Be proud.

      • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 26, 2018 at 19:58 #

        The partial, temporary, imitation “immunity” conferred by a vaccine confers very little benefit.

        Yes, the near elimination of measles from the U.S. had nothing to do with the vaccine program (hint-that’s sarcasm to demonstrate what a denialist this commenter is).

        Goodbye denialist.

      • Chris November 20, 2018 at 18:25 #

        Murphy: “In answer to the question about whether the disease is worse than the vaccine: …”

        Obviously you did not understand this: “Provide actual scientific citations to support your answer by reputable, qualified researchers.”

        Those two are just random websites full of opinions, I asked for actual scientific citations. Essentially studies published in actual medical journals by those who are qualified with education and research experience.

        “Not, that is, in a healthy, nominally-well-nourished population like the USA, where adequate home care is available…”

        And where about five hundred died per year before 1963, and several more were hospitalized and suffered permanent disabilities. Pneumonia is the most common cause of hospitalization and death from measles. It is foolish and expensive to think it is better for a kid to very very sick instead of preventing it with a vaccine.

        Now, here is what you need to do now is to produce the PubMed indexed studies by qualified reputable researchers not on the Dwoskin payroll that the present American MMR vaccine that was introduced in 1978 causes more harm than measles, mumps and rubella.

  34. Jenni November 17, 2018 at 20:15 #

    This doesn’t give you any information about the test at all. Just the results. Did they pick children from the same social background? Did they run it on children in the same school system? Those things alone effect education. Family environment as well.
    What about their health?

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) November 19, 2018 at 19:31 #

      Did you read the actual article or just the title? I ask because I discuss some of what you ask above. And I’ve noticed that those who oppose vaccines have been very quick to want to downplay this study without putting in any effort to read it or what I wrote. It’s as if they just can’t accept that vaccines could be good. And have to make sure that they spread confusion wherever they can about anything that says otherwise.

  35. bongstar420 May 9, 2019 at 18:52 #

    The only thing that raises IQ is not being in poverty..and that is marginal.

    • Sullivan (Matt Carey) May 9, 2019 at 20:16 #

      and, yet, anti-vaccine activists use far weaker studies.

      That’s the point. For all their talk of ‘doing the research’, they are just heavily biased pseudoscience mongers.


  1. Should I vaccinate my baby? | Wild Homestead - August 7, 2014

    […] with nature, and disease actually strengthens the immune system. Actually, studies have shown that vaccinated children have higher IQs in the Phillipines, a nation with endemic illnesses. Avoiding disease most likely has a protective […]

  2. Should I vaccinate my baby? | All Around Intensity Fitness - August 8, 2014

    […] the immune system. Real studies in nations with these endemic diseases have actually shown that vaccinated children have higher IQs. Avoiding disease, not catching it, appears to have a protective effect on children’s […]

  3. Your Freedom, My Risk – Inoculations | Thinking Out Loud - September 18, 2014

    […] https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/01/22/a-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated-study-and-guess-what-vaccin&#8230; […]

  4. Bill Maher doubles down on his antivaccine misinformation…again – Respectful Insolence - February 16, 2015

    […] His misleading claim about the lack of vaccinated/unvaccinated studies is not only misleading, but objectively not not true. It simply isn’t. Also, whenever antivaccine organizations try to do such studies themselves, […]

  5. Bill Maher doubles down on his antivaccine misinformation…again [Respectful Insolence] | Gaia Gazette - February 16, 2015

    […] His misleading claim about the lack of vaccinated/unvaccinated studies is not only misleading, but objectively not not true. It simply isn’t. Also, whenever antivaccine organizations try to do such studies themselves, […]

  6. How My Daughter Taught Me that Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism | 0 rating, 0 votes0 rating, 0 votes 0 To keep your body as strong as can be, eating healthy is the key - June 29, 2016

    […] it not? Because I can tell you right now that if your baby is going to be autistic, she’s going to be autistic whether you vaccinate her or not. The only difference between now and fifty years ago is that kids with autism are diagnosed […]

  7. Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Studies – Vaxopedia - September 14, 2016

    […] A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study and, guess what, vaccinated kids do better on tests […]

  8. The Benefits and Risks of Delaying Vaccines – VAXOPEDIA - January 5, 2018

    […] A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study and, guess what, vaccinated kids do better on tests […]

  9. Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated – Smallpox Edition – VAXOPEDIA - June 19, 2018

    […] A vaccinated vs. unvaccinated study and, guess what, vaccinated kids do better on tests […]

Leave a Reply to Chris Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: