Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provided Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them
Keywords:chronic illness, pediatric health, relative incidence of office visits, RIOV, scheduled pediatric vaccines, well-baby visits
Controversy over a reported increase in office visits specifically scheduled for illnesses and conditions in children has stalled progress in understanding adverse outcomes associated with an increasingly crowded schedule of pediatric vaccines. Studies finding associations between vaccines and adverse conditions have been targeted for retraction. Here, we revisit data from one such study, comparing the increase in office visits for conditions independent of the routine “well-child” visits (hereafter, Health Care Visits; HCVs). The retraction occurred after >1/4 of a million people had read the peer-reviewed study. It was targeted by one anonymous reader who complained he did not believe the published results. His complaint hinged on the supposition — unsupported by any data — that vaccinated children made their scheduled HCVs more regularly than unvaccinated, implying that those unkept appointments led to fewer diagnoses. We show, here, new data from the same practice that the opposite is true. When the data for vaccinated versus unvaccinated children are examined, the critic’s claim is exactly reversed. Relative Risk and Odds Ratios sustain and augment the original report. Additional office visits, beyond scheduled HCVs, are quantified, controlling for variation in kept HCVs and age/days of care. Estimates of Health Care Incidence (HCI) show that visits above regular HCVs increase due to vaccination by 2.56 to 4.98 additional office visits for vaccine-related health issues per unit increase in vaccination per year. Blocking and multiple linear regression analysis of interactions indicate both that the unvaccinated are keeping scheduled HCVs more often than the vaccinated, and that vaccination comes with a net increase in non-routine office visits, i.e., not “well-baby visits” but trips to the doctor for reasons other than vaccination. Taking account of the complexities of healthcare-seeking with measured covariates and outcomes, especially adverse health events, suggests that vaccination may be driving the increased need for non-routine office visits for specific health complaints. Meanwhile, one reader’s unsupported and false criticism of the former study, reflects a pervasive bias leading to systematic removal of many well-designed studies attributing adverse outcomes to vaccines. Hiding such well-designed and faithfully reported, not to mention peer-reviewed and published research, clears the way for marketing programs bought and paid for by vaccine manufacturers and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Aaby P., Mogensen S.W., Rodrigues A., Benn C.S. (2018). Evidence of increase in mortality after the introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine to children aged 6–35 months in Guinea-Bissau: A time for reflection? Frontiers in Public Health, 6(79). https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00079
Dal-Ré, R., Caplan, A. L., & Marusic, A. (2019). Editors’ and authors’ individual conflicts of interest disclosure and journal transparency. A cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals. BMJ Open, 9(7), e029796. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029796
Elisha, E., Guetzkow J., Shir-Raz, Y. & Ronel, N. (2020). Retraction of scientific papers: The case of vaccine research. Critical Public Health, 32(4), 533-542. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581596.2021.1878109
E. P. I. C. Magazine. (2017, December 2). Vaccines are big business. Pharma is a trillion-dollar industry with vaccines accounting for $25 billion in annual sales. The Centers for Disease Control’s decision to add a vaccine to the schedule can guarantee its manufacturer millions of customers and billions in revenue with minimal advertising or marketing costs and complete immunity from lawsuits. E.P.I.C. Empowering People, Inspiring Community. http://epicmag.org/vaccines-big-business/
Hooker B.S. & Miller N.Z. (2020). Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders. SAGE Open Medicine, 8, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2050312120925344
Kulldorf, M. (2013). Appendix D: Study designs for the safety evaluation of different childhood immunization schedules. In Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine, The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK206950/
Liu, J. J., Bell, C. M., Matelski, J. J., Detsky, A. S., & Cram, P. (2017). Payments by US pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to US medical journal editors: Retrospective observational study. BMJ, 359, j4619. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4619
Lyons-Weiler, J. & Thomas, P. (2020). Relative incidence of office visits and cumulative rates of billed diagnoses along the axis of vaccination. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(22): 8674-8698. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/22/8674 (Retraction by the journal published 2021, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 7754.)
Lyons-Weiler, J. & P Thomas. 2021. Vaccine practice payment schedules create perverse incentives for unnecessary medical procedures — at what cost to patients? IJVTPR 2(1) https://doi.org/10.56098/ijvtpr.v2i1.21
Mawson A.R. & Croft, A.M. (2020). Multiple vaccinations and the enigma of vaccine injury. Vaccines (Basel), 8(4), 676-692. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fvaccines8040676
Mawson A.R., Ray B.D., Bhuiyan A.R. & Jacob B. (2017). Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12-year-old U.S. children. Journal of Translational Science, 3(3), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.15761/JTS.1000186
Mogensen S.W., Andersen A., Rodrigues A., Benn C.S. & Aaby P. (2017). The introduction of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis and oral polio vaccine among young infants in an urban African community: A natural experiment. eBioMedicine, 17(Mar.), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ebiom.2017.01.041
Niforatos, J. D., Narang, J., & Trueger, N. S. (2020). Financial conflicts of interest among emergency medicine journals’ editorial boards. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 75(3), 418–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.02.020
Shaw, C. A. (2020). Weaponizing the peer review system. International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research, 1(1), 11–26. https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/1
Wong, V. S. S., Avalos, L. N., & Callaham, M. L. (2017). Industry payments to physician journal editors (e3359v1). PeerJ Inc. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3359v1
Copyright (c) 2022 James Lyons-Weiler, Blaylock Russell L
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright for materials in this journal, IJVTPR, is owned by the author. The author, however, grants first right of publication to the journal, IJVTPR and assures the editorial staff of the journal that the work submitted has not simultaneously been submitted to any other journal, nor is it under consideration for publication by any other journal. If any portion of the work submitted has appeared elsewhere, the quoted material is properly cited and credit is given to the original publisher. The submitting author (or the principal and corresponding author of the work) also assures the editors of IJVTPR that he or she has obtained all required written permissions from any quoted authors or publishers of quoted materials. The submitting author also agrees to hold IJVTPR and its editorial staff harmless from any infractions of copyright law that may be discovered at any time in the future in the submitted work. The author assures the editorial staff at IJVTPR that none of the work submitted is plagiarized, and that any recycled or precycled material by the author is identified as such with proper credits in the text to any other parties holding a copyright interest in the quoted material.