State of health of unvaccinated children

Vaccine Injury... It's a antivax site.

One sec. I'm sure I've seen this claim before.

Hmm, looks like there is a clear explanation of why the KIGGS survey is inherently flawed.

So, we are caught in a Catch 22: we cannot design a prospective, randomized, double blind test due to ethical considerations, and any retrospective studies are inherently limited due to the small numbers of unvaccinated children and the impossibility of randomization. Clearly, any results we may get will need to be analyzed carefully, taking into account all the shortcomings we just went over.

Why is randomisation important?

the point of randomization is precisely to control for all those variables that the scientist didn’t, or can’t, think off on his own. By definition, the non-vaccinated group would be a self-selected group, which may exhibit biases or other behaviors that can affect the results in a non-intuitive way, so that it would be impossible for the researchers to control for said behaviors.

And the conclusion:

However there are certain shortcomings that are unavoidable: firstly, even though the sample size was extremely large, the unvaccinated represented a very small fraction of it, 94 children,which makes it impossible to do any meaningful statistics

Let's recap:

13000, of which less than 100 were unvaccinated.

It's better than Wakefields 12, but really, not by much.
 
Red - even while a seriously flawed study it was nice to see you try and link something approaching science. A tiny step better than replying with politics when asked for science as in your anti-GW posting. So huzzah for the 1/2 step improvement. Keep working at it.
 
Red - even while a seriously flawed study it was nice to see you try and link something approaching science. A tiny step better than replying with politics when asked for science as in your anti-GW posting. So huzzah for the 1/2 step improvement. Keep working at it.
yes, quite refreshing! :banana:
 
Back
Top