The following summarizes and responds to criticisms published by Henry Ford, The Conversation, and Stat News regarding the unpublished study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children in the Henry Ford Health System.
We address these criticisms not because we must, and not to demonstrate that this is a “perfect” study, but because science demands debate. ICAN has not claimed that this unpublished study is without limitations. However, if it is thrown out, then one must throw out most of the studies in the already limited universe of post-licensure vaccine safety literature. People should carefully assess this and every study, and raise challenges, highlight limitations, and discuss flaws. That is scientific debate, and everyone should be free to engage in it and to do so without fear of professional reprisal.
Criticism: The size of the unvaccinated group was smaller than the size of the vaccinated group.
Response: The difference in the size of the vaccinated group (16,511 children) and the unvaccinated group (1,957 children) is not a serious issue since the study calculated the “rate” between these two groups. The numbers in each group are also large enough to have statistical significance. Studies routinely compare the rate of harm between groups of different sizes, just like what was done in this study. Rejecting this study because group sizes were different would mean throwing out most studies in the medical literature.
Criticism: The unvaccinated children were, on average, followed for a shorter duration and hence, were less likely to be diagnosed with a chronic disease (so-called “surveillance bias”).
Response: The unpublished study directly acknowledges and accounts for potential surveillance bias, explaining:
Since median enrollment time was shorter in the unexposed [i.e. the unvaccinated] group, a sensitivity analysis for developing a chronic health condition was conducted for subjects enrolled in the health plan for at least 1-year, 3-years and 5-years which demonstrated consistent results. Vaccine exposure was associated with higher incidence … as well as a higher risk for developing a chronic health condition for subjects enrolled at least 1-year (HR [Hazard Ratio] 2.84, CI [Confidence Interval] 2.38-3.38), 3-years (HR 3.48, CI 2.74-4.42), and 5-years (HR 4.05, CI 2.82-5.83).
This means that when including only children enrolled from birth and for at least five years, the result was an even higher rate of chronic health issues among the vaccinated compared to the unvaccinated children. Further, if the chronic health rate between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups was due to differences in enrollment time, then we would expect the “HR” or “hazard ratio” number in the above quote to have gotten smaller the longer the duration of enrollment. Instead, the hazard ratio got larger.
Additionally, the CDC white paper on how to conduct a vaccinated versus unvaccinated study, which the study’s lead author agreed was followed in conducting the unpublished study, states that many more children are diagnosed with numerous relevant health outcomes from birth through the age of 2 than from ages 3-8 years old. So, the shorter time period should not have a large effect, if any, on diagnosed health outcomes. Here is a copy of the table (3.d on p. 32) from the white paper:
Watch Here: https://www.aninconvenientstudy.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment