Studies that rely on self reporting are kinda useless. More-so when studying a politically polarizing issue such as vaccinations. The best studies are double blind studies (where neither the subject or the researcher know which group the child is in until the end), but there are ethical issues that have to be dealt with when working in healthcare. It's not impossible to have a double blind study (since most legitimate ones are), it's just quite a bit more work to make sure it's being done ethically.

When I start seeing studies that use sound statistical practices getting pulled from journals, that's when I'll start worrying.

The results of the first ever study comparing the health of vaccinated children vs. unvaccinated children is out, and they are already causing controversy.

For many – hundreds of thousands of families that have already been injured by vaccines – the results won’t be surprising, but to many others, the findings might be a little shocking. This is possibly why the scientific journal which originally published the results withdrew the study from publication.

The abstract of the study was published online in Frontiers in Public Health after being accepted November 2. The study compared children’s health via surveys of mothers who home-schooled their children aged 6-12 years. Nearly 40 percent of the children had never been vaccinated, so the control group was adequate to do a good comparison against children who had been vaccinated.

After heavy criticism from the public and scientific community due to the results of the study, though, it was retracted . Why? Those that were vaccinated were three times more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.

The abstract specifically stated,

“A total of 415 mothers provided data on 666 children, of which 261 (39%) were unvaccinated. Vaccinated children were significantly less likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with chickenpox and pertussis, but significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia, otitis media, allergies and NDDs (defined as Autism Spectrum Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and/or a learning disability).”

The study further concluded,

“In this study based on mothers’ reports, the vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD. Further research involving larger, independent samples is needed to verify and understand these unexpected findings in order to optimize the impact of vaccines on children’s health.”

The initial backlash was significant. Public comments included, “this study is of poor design, though not impossible results. Study relies of self-report of moms, inducing bias,” and, “Another garbage vaccine study in Frontiers journal. Scientists, stop reviewing/publishing there.”

Science Blogs also quickly posted an article titled, “ Antivaccinationists promote a bogus internet “survey.” Hilarity ensues as it’s retracted. ”

When the paper was pulled, the publishers were also accused of not following a proper retraction process .

Though the journal isn’t the first to pull a vaccine paper amid public criticism — in February, Vaccine temporarily removed — then soon retracted — a paper linking the vaccine for Human papillomavirus to behavioral problems in mice; a modified version of the paper was later republished , the retraction is suspect considering how quickly the paper was pulled.

When the publishers were asked why this happened, they simply responded that the paper was submitted for review, but had not been approved.

Researchers like Catherine J. Frompovich likely wouldn’t think the study is so ‘hilarious’ as Science Blogs attests. She writes of a doctor in the UK who believes vaccines are indeed tied to autism.

Dr. Graham Downing, who is a Neuro-musculoskeletal and Functional Medicine consultant in the UK has found that the vaccination of pregnant women increases inflammation in their bodies and also increases the risk of releasing inflammatory markers in their fetuses/infants. Such releases include phenotypes [the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.]

Downing also contends that the increased inflammation in cells caused by vaccines, also elevate in the fetal brain where cytokines release glutamates. The prefrontal lobes and the limbic system, which involves human emotions, are affected in fetuses from pregnancy vaccines administered to moms-to-be.

So, not only are children outside the womb affected, but the neurological/immunological decline starts while they are still in the womb.

So, why are vaccine promoters so quick to dismiss, or make a drivel of a study based on mothers’ health reports of their children? Bias or no bias – it’s hard to dismiss a 300 percent increase in autism and neurological damage rates – but those reasons are left to your imagination.