Thursday, October 13, 2011


Really? Intellectually, I know some people are gullible and antiscience while relying on pseudoscience to legitimize their beliefs but this kinda shit drives me nuts.

Someone recently posted this chart on FB.

Direct comparison KIGGS study and (September 2011)

Damn! Sure looks like it's a LOT healthier to avoid vaccinations, doesn't it?

The original KiGGS study is abstracted at this site. I recommend reading the whole thing but I’ll quote some highlights here:

The lifetime prevalence of diseases preventable by vaccination was markedly higher in unvaccinated than in vaccinated subjects.

The prevalence of allergic diseases and non-specific infections in children and adolescents was not found to depend on vaccination status.

Protective vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures in modern medicine.

The benefits, efficacy, and safety of protective vaccinations are widely scientifically proven.

Some parents—and doctors—fear that vaccinated children are protected against specific infections, but that their immune systems reacts less to non-specific diseases and that vaccinated children contract infections such as colds, bronchitis, or gastrointestinal infections more often than unvaccinated children. However, the KiGGS data did not show any notable differences in the numbers of infections.

Another fear associated with protective vaccinations is that they might possibly promote the development of allergies. The KiGGS data did not show statistically significant differences in the prevalence of atopic disorders in unvaccinated subjects compared with vaccinated subjects.

In recent years, a number of scientific articles were published investigating potential associations between vaccinations and allergies. In a review article by Bernsen et al. from 2006, which summarized study results about the association of diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccination, measles/mumps/rubella vaccination, and Haemophilus influenzae type b vaccination with atopic disorders, the authors conclude that according to the available evidence, recommended protective vaccinations do not increase the risk of atopic disorders in children.

The current guideline for allergy prevention (as of March 2009) recommends vaccinations according to STIKO recommendations for children and adolescents with and without allergy risk.

In addition to atopic disorders, we further compared diseases—such as obstructive bronchitis, pneumonia and otitis media, heart disease, anemia, epilepsy, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—in unvaccinated and vaccinated subjects. No relevant differences in the lifetime prevalences were found, neither for different age groups nor between girls and boys. SchneeweiƟ et al. conducted a comprehensive literature review of vaccine safety, the central part of which was the evaluation of vaccine critical arguments on the basis of the current state of scientific knowledge. None of the hypotheses were found to be valid.

The evaluation showed that vaccinated children and unvaccinated children differed substantially only in terms of the lifetime prevalence of vaccine preventable diseases; as is to be expected the risk of such diseases is notably lower in vaccinated subjects.

[End quotes from abstract of KiGGS study.]

Wow! That's kinda the opposite of what the graph shows, isn't it? It shows that there are significantly smaller values (lower incidence of illnesses and diseases) for nonvax kids than for vax kids but these statements quoted from the abstract say otherwise. What's up?

Yes, that’s certainly what the graph seems to indicate but if you read the label carefully, you’ll note that it says:

Direct comparison KIGGS study and (September 2011)

Let’s parse that.

The blue graph is the scientific study produced under rigorous conditions by KiGGS. It included vaccinated and unvaccinated children. The graph is their summary. The comparison results, and differentiation between vax and nonvax kids, are deciphered at that site I linked in ponderous, statistical detail.

The red graph is the compilation of voluntary parent comments from parents who subscribe to the beliefs of the website called This informal online survey, created by a rabid antivax site and populated by feedback from rabid antivax responders, is not only unscientific, it is antiscientific. And (Do I really need to say it?) worthless, fact-free, anecdotal crap.

To create the seemingly impressive graph at the beginning of this post, the ideologues at vaccineinjury simply took their anecdotal feedback from their true believers and stuck that alongside the actual, scientific KiGGS graph. Voila! Pseudoscience at its most heinous.


Vaccinate. Don't vaccinate. The choice is yours. But, please, whatever choice you make, do it on the basis of facts not woo-woo.


  1. Thanks for this Frank. I saw the graph and I did wonder about how it could possibly be true but I wouldn't base my choice to vaccinate or not off of only one side of the argument.

  2. I didn't have a problem with the chart until I found the article it's in that people have been passing around on FB. The headline is:

    "New Study: Vaccinated Children Have More Than Twice the Diseases and Disorders Than Unvaccinated Children"

    That is a horrible headline. Terribly misleading. It wasn't a study, it was a survey. And it didn't show what that headline says it did at all. What it showed was that the parents of the unvaccinated children SELF-REPORTED fewer allergies/illnesses/etc. in their kids than the KIGGS study found in the general population via physician-administered interviews, examinations, and records review.

    For me, it all falls apart at the self-reported. Just pull up any of the number of studies that show how untrustworthy self-reporting is.

  3. A comment from the friend of a friend sums it up more succinctly than I did:

    "Still, the graph shows this fact: The non-vaccinating parents in this study *believe* their children experience fewer of these illnesses." Emphasis mine.

    1. My child almost died from whooping cough only days after the vac.. my other was strong like an ox... then after vacs,fell ill, vomiting, sick for 6 months. There is no way possible that sticking formaldehyde and mercury in children's veins PROTECTS them! God made the planet with healthy foods for a reason - NOT poisonous vaccines... btw - anyone see the rate of autism spiking along with the mass vaccinations rising? whoever wrote this article is either paid off, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number -- P (for People) -- might be reduced. He says:

      "The world today has 6.8 billion people... that's headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent."

      You can watch this yourself at:

      Learn more:

    2. Natural news? Really? The site which is even less scientific than the vaccine injury site. And that pathetically ignorant attempt to link autism to vaccines has been so thoroughly disproved that it's just sad when ignorant people like you bring it up.

      Do you also think the world is flat and disease is caused by bad air?

  4. Thank you for this. We did the research when I was pregnant, and my kid is vaxed. I don't care if people vax or don't vax, or really I should say I don't mind if people don't vax, but pseudoscience makes me CRAAAAAAAAAZYYYYY. I hate having to decide whether to let crap like this go, or call my friends out for ignorant BS. I guess it depends on my mood that day ;)

  5. This just proves that vaccines needed to be properly unequivocally indubitably scientifically blind and double-blind control tested like other substances. Until then you take your chances. Personally, I don't want such crap in my system based entirely on known hazardous ingredients and the conspicuous absence of clinical evidence of effectiveness. Isn't there enough contamination to contend with already?

    1. not so many ppl r as smart as u... i wasn't and have 2 wounded children - urs must be luckier :)

  6. Alan, I dunno if you're being dense or intentionally obtuse. The KiGGs study, and infinite others, have done the testing and provided the clinical evidence and efficacy. All the anti-vax stuff is anecdotal, hyperbolic, unscientific junk, like the vaccineinjury survey which is the root of this particular bit of pseudoscience. The KiGGS study proves, along with many other studies, that vaccines have been "unequivocally indubitably scientifically blind and double-blind control tested" and that they work, per the KiGGS comments:

    Protective vaccinations are among the most important and effective preventive measures in modern medicine.

    The benefits, efficacy, and safety of protective vaccinations are widely scientifically proven.

  7. People truly believe that these vaccines have been properly tested? how about the fact that many of them were tested for a maximum of 12 months before they were approved... how about the fact that these vaccines weren't tested against placebos but other vaccines (which of course will show no difference in allergies etc) how about that some of these vaccines have not even been proven to work... Do your homework people. You can't possbily tell me that injecting toxic substances like aluminium, mercury, formaldehyde (amount others) as well as animal cells, blood, tissues etc. Eugh! there are even human foetel cells in some vaccines. Autoimmune disease anyone? keep your vaccine, I'm not giving my son any!!!

  8. Em, feel free to do as you wish but please actually read scientific studies before complaining enthusiastically but incorrectly about their validity. I wihs you and your son good luck surviving with woo woo inplace of actual medicine.

  9. Cap'n Franko - a few questions.

    #1 I too saw the graph and thought "whaaaa?" and looked up the actual KRIGGS study. However, Let's be clear - you are SLAMMING the red graph because it is all volunteered information. And, YES, I agree that it is not as scientifically controlled as the KiGGS study, BUT..... all the info from the German study was volunteered by parents too. Yes, they answered a questionaire written by scientists and approved by a scientific board. But. Still. In both cases, you have parents answering questions (voluntarily) about their children's health. These statistics were not gleaned from doctor/hospital records, they were voluntarily submitted by parents IN BOTH CASES.

    #2 Something I'm wondering about is the incredibly small number of unvaccinated kids used to compare in the KiGGS study. 13 453 kid's reliable vaccine/non-vaccine info was used in the study, and of that number .7% were unvaccinated (that's about 94 kids, out of 13 THOUSAND). I'm not questioning the science of the data gathered, but I do wonder if 94 out of 13 THOUSAND is a good comparison? I am not medically trained, so I really don't know the answer here.

    In general, I agree with your point that the two graphs should not be compared. They are not equal from a scientific data viewpoint. However.... you yourself do not seem to be accurately representing the KiGGS date. Just sayin'.....

  10. The problem is there have been no blind or double-blind studies done (as far as I know) to compare vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids. It's not hard to guess why. because the results of such a study would be very close or same as the graph above. Such a study would be very expensive and of course no pharma would ever pay for it:).

    I guess organizations who are trying to fight vaccines also can't affort such a study. the least they can do - is self-reporting, because unvaccinated kids simply do not need to go to the doctor as often as the vaccinated kids are:):) My family is a proof of that. You can call this pseudo science, but this: (quote) "The benefits, efficacy, and safety of protective vaccinations are widely scientifically proven."- is not science either:)

  11. Did you read the post? Did you read, or at least look at, the KiGGS study? It did indeed compare vax and nonvax kids. It did conclude *scientifically* that "The benefits, efficacy, and safety of protective vaccinations are widely scientifically proven."

    Your comment about your family is anecdotal and in line with the subjective opinion (not objective evidence) of the rabid antivaxers on that website. The facts and science are in the KiGGS study.

    You're wrong.