We know that statistics may be twisted into the realm of absurdity, but most of us seem to accept them when considering the safety of medicines.
Here’s a typical example: We ask a doctor who recommends a vaccine about the risk of contracting Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), a serious autoimmune condition which may evolve into paralysis. The doctor may assure us that the risk is “probably only one additional case in each million persons vaccinated.”
Why should we accept this statistic without question?
Where do these safety statistics come from? They come from epidemiologists and statisticians whose interest is in the promotion of vaccines and who manipulate the statistics so that vaccines appear to be safer than they are in reality.
How Statistics are Misused to Make Vaccines “Safe”
Dr. Lawrence B. Palevsky, a widely respected pediatrician in New York, gives a more detailed explanation:
It is often stated that there is normally no higher number of GBS after vaccination than is found in the population as a whole: This statement is more than dubious. We are told that vaccine safety studies are designed to evaluate whether or not vaccines contribute to the development of adverse events.
HOW AUTHORITIES COLLECT SAFETY DATA AFTER VACCINATIONS
When authorities accumulate data in a cohort of people who are given a vaccine or a group of vaccines, they closely monitor them for a period of time to observe any symptoms of illness, usually 2-4 weeks. They then compare the incidence of any reported symptoms in the vaccine study group to the incidence of the reporting of these symptoms in the general population. The incidence of symptoms in the general population is normally referred to as the background rate.
HOW WRONG CONCLUSIONS ARE MADE REGARDING VACCINE SAFETY STATISTICS
In every vaccine study performed in this way by the vaccine manufacturers, they have come to conclude, through their statistical analyses, that the symptoms reported in the study group after vaccination are no higher in incidence than the rate at which these symptoms would occur in the general population. Therefore, they conclude, the onset of these symptoms in the vaccinated study group is not necessarily due to an adverse reaction to the vaccination(s) being studied. In other words, the symptoms in the vaccinated group were most likely to have occurred by chance, unrelated to the effects of the vaccines.
The next step in the process is to then conclude that the vaccine(s) being studied is(are) safe.
HERE’S THE PROBLEM: THEY ARE COMPARING APPLES WITH APPLES
The vaccine manufacturers are using background data from the general population – A POPULATION THAT IS ALSO VACCINATED! (emphasis added)
In this type of study design, the investigators are studying a group of vaccinated people and comparing the data to a background population of people just like them, who are also vaccinated.
We can’t conclude anything about the vaccinated population in this type of study design because the data are being compared to themselves, and not to a set of data from a proper unvaccinated control group. Yet, this is the main type of study design that is used to evaluate vaccine safety. (emphasis added)
HOW SHOULD THE STUDIES BE DONE?
In order to do a proper study, investigators would need to accumulate data in a cohort of people who are given a vaccine or a group of vaccines, by monitoring them for a period of time to observe any symptoms of illness, and comparing the incidence of the reported symptoms in the study group to the incidence of these symptoms that are reported in a cohort of people who are demographically similar, and who are unvaccinated. (emphasis added)
This is the type of study that would help us to understand the frequency and severity of adverse reactions that could possibly occur in a vaccinated population.
This type of study, however, has never been done by the vaccine manufacturers. Many attempts to set up this type of scientific study have been thwarted by the courts, the vaccine manufacturers, medical organizations, and the ideology that vaccines are nothing other than safe and effective, and appropriately studied with the highest of scientific standards.
This method involving misuse of statistics applies not only in the case of GBS but generally regarding other serious, so-called “rare conditions.”
GBS and Other Adverse Reactions to Vaccines are Under-Reported
Another significant factor which contributes towards the false impression that GBS is rare after vaccinations: The number of actual GBS cases after vaccinations is grossly under-reported.
Only a small percentage of adverse reactions are reported to VAERS (US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System). It may be as low as one to two percent. Here are some of the reasons why adverse reactions to vaccines are not properly reported:
- Not all doctors are trained in reporting adverse reactions.
- It may be difficult to link the reaction with the vaccine. ( Autoimmune conditions may present themselves up to several years after a vaccine.)
- The adverse reaction, for example, an autoimmune condition, may not even be stated in product information.
GBS may be incorrectly diagnosed as another condition.
- There is minimal incentive for doctors to report because it takes time and work.
- Doctors may fear being contacted by the manufacturer.
- It may be unpleasant for doctors to admit to patients that a vaccine which was recommended was the cause of the condition.
- Citizens and doctors are encouraged to report to the manufacturers. This is surely a case of the fox guarding the hen house.
Due to both misleading statistics and gross under-reporting, we are given the false impression that Guillain-Barré syndrome and many other serious conditions are rare after vaccinations.
If medical statistics were compiled by statisticians who had no interest in the outcome, the drug industry would topple into the dust. – Robert CatalanoReferences:
Sandy Lunoe writes for VacTruth, where this article first appeared.