Sometimes I feel a little bit guilty when I’m writing a post deconstructing anti-vaccine nonsense, “alternative medicine” quackery, or some other form of pseudoscience. This guilt usually derives when I end up picking a target that’s just too easy, a study that’s just so mind-numbingly, brain-meltingly awful that it’s not much of a challenge, even though at the time I perceive that it needs to be done. I suppose it’s like the feeling that a professional sports team might feel if it were ever paired with a high school team–or even a junior high–team for a game. In fact, I was half-tempted just to post the link to the “study” (which it really isn’t, not really) and let you, my readers, have some fun. I’d consider it an exercise in seeing just how much regular readers have learned, or even how much newer readers have picked up. At the very least, it’d be a nice new chew toy for you all.

But what fun would that be for me, other than sitting back like a proud papa and chuckling as I watch you guys rip into the study in a manner that makes a starving cheetah ripping into its prey look downright restrained by comparison? If I get the first chomps in, I can still sit back and watch you all have at it, as long as I leave just a bit left over for you. But, before I do, a wee bit of history.

Ever since the anti-vaccine movement started backing away the now thoroughly discredited claim that the thimerosal in preservatives cause autism and the even more thoroughly discredited claim that the MMR vaccine causes autism and pivoted to readjust its reality to embrace the idea that it’s all about “too many too soon” and “toxins” in vaccines (even though that’s scientifically unsupported too), they’ve been clamoring for what they like to call a “vaxed-unvaxed study.” Basically, this is a study of vaccinated children versus unvaccinated children. At first, having no concept of medical ethics, anti-vaccine activists demanded a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, apparently not realizing how utterly unethical such a study would be, given that it would leave the placebo control group unprotected against potentially dangerous childhood illnesses. Eventually, it started to sink in that such a study is neither feasible nor ethical (although sadly this wasn’t the case for all anti-vaccine loons). When that finally happened, it was so cute to see anti-vaccine activists try to propose epidemiological studies. Basically, it’s painfully obvious that anti-vaccine activists don’t understand the issues involved, particularly the size of the study that would be required, the difficulty in controlling for confounding factors in the sorts of designs that would be required (such as case-control, for example), and how expensive such a study would be. Also, to meet ethical standards, such a study would have to have a decent amount of preliminary data to support its hypothesis that vaccines cause autism (or whatever), and there is none, at least none not coming from anti-vaccine loons or investigators somehow associated with anti-vaccine loons.

Not that that’s totally stopped anti-vaxers from trying to do such a study.

For example, four years ago, J.B. Handley’s (now Jenny McCarthy’s) anti-vaccine propaganda group Generation Rescue did what was billed as a “study” of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children. It was nothing of the sort. Rather, it was a poorly designed phone survey whose results in some groups suggested that vaccines protected against autism, although Generation Rescue spun it as supporting the vaccine-autism hypothesis. Of course, the whole survey was so ridiculously badly designed that you really couldn’t tell anything from it at all, given its selection bias and failure to control for confounders, but that doesn’t stop it from periodically rising from the grave and shambling off to feast on the brains of antivaxers, who then cite it as though it’s evidence of anything other than the incompetence of Generation Rescue at any sort of research.

Now they’re at it again, although it’s not Generation Rescue who did this new “study.” Even so, not surprisingly, the anti-vaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism is nonetheless promoting it under the title Vax UnVax Study Results, as is the one anti-vaccine website that can challenge for the sheer intensity of its burning stupid, Child Health Safety, which is promoting the study/survey breathlessly as New Survey Shows Unvaccinated Children Vastly Healthier – Far Lower Rates of Chronic Conditions and Autism.

It does nothing of the sort.

In fact, looking at the actual survey used, although it pains me to say so, Generation Rescue comes out looking more competent than, the English-language version of, a German anti-vaccine website run by a homeopath named Andreas Bachmair, who conducted the survey. You’ll see what I mean in a minute. The survey begins with this introduction:

For statistical evaluation of the state of health of entirely unvaccinated children we request you to fill out the following form. The data will be published anonymously and handled with utmost confidentiality. The results help us to acquire accurate information about the health of unvaccinated children.

Does anyone see a problem here? Well, actually, does anyone see several problems, but one glaring problem besides the problem of this being an anonymous Internet survey that anyone can fill out? Let’s just put it this way. Even Generation Rescue tried to have an actual control group, namely vaccinated children. Indeed, although Generation Rescue did a crappy and arbitrary job of it, its survey company at least tried to stratify respondents into different dose levels of vaccines, to produce three groups: unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, and fully vaccinated. What does Bachmair do? Nothing of the sort! He only collects data on “entirely unvaccinated children.” He even puts it in bold! Let’s just say that the construction of this survey demonstrates in this survey all the scientific understanding and rigor that I would expect from a homeopath, given that homeopaths believe that magic water cures people.

Before I come back to the horrendously bad methodology, why don’t we just summarize some of the results of this survey and then look at some of the reactions? There were a total of 7,762 children whose information was provided to the survey, and the general results are summarized as the state of health of unvaccinated children. Before we get to the “money results,” let’s take a peak at some anomalies that suggest that this particular group might not be–shall we say–strictly comparable to children in the population at large. For example:

The parents stated that their preferred treatment was naturopathic and homeopathic. Less than 10% said they preferred conventional medicine. Treatment in the “other” column was mainly chiropractic and supplemental.

So, right away, this survey demonstrates that the parents who filled it out were a self-selected, biased sample, the vast majority of whom favor alternative medicine and are hostile to scientific medicine. Indeed, 99.69% of the respondents report being happy that they did not vaccinate their children. One thing that this love of woo and hostility towards scientific medicine can mean is that a lot of these children could have subclinical or mildly clinical disease that goes undiagnosed because they never take their children to a real doctor, preferring instead homeopaths, naturopaths, and chiropractors.

To get a flavor of the health results, let’s look at the part of the report that asks about asthma and atopic diseases:

Asthma, hayfever and neurodermatitis are seen very frequently today. A recent German study with 17461 children between 0-17 years of age (KIGGS) showed that 4.7% of these children suffer from asthma, 10.7% of these children from hayfever and 13.2% from neurodermatitis. These numbers differ in western countries, i.e. the prevalence of asthma among children in the US is 6% whereas it is 14-16% in Australia (Australia’s Health 2004, AIHW)
The prevalence of asthma among unvaccinated children in our study is around 2.5%, hayfever 2.5% and neurodermatitis 7%.
According to the KIGGS study more than 40% of children between the ages of 3 and 17 years were sensitized against at least one allergen tested (20 common allergens were tested) and 22.9% had an allergic disease. Although we did not perform a bloodtest, around 10% stated that their children had an allergy.

One wonders how, if these parents chose homeopaths, naturopaths, and chiropractors over real doctors, they had any idea whatsoever whether or not their children actually had asthma. One of the most common presentations of asthma is cough alone. In fact, milder cases of asthma can be difficult to diagnose in children; so once again, what the parents report probably doesn’t tell us much. Neither does the claim that far fewer of these children had allergies.

Which brings us to autism.

If you scroll down to the graph looking at autism and various other problems, such as ADHD, you’ll find that the overall prevalence reported in these children was 0.57%. In terms of raw numbers, that’s 44 children, which makes this statement rather puzzling:

There are also autism cases in unvaccinated children. However over 80% stated, that it is only a mild form or a high functioning form of autism. Among all participants there were 4 severe autism cases.

Apparently, basic math isn’t a homeopath’s strong suit, which probably explains why they can’t understand the concept of Avagadro’s number. Be that as it may, if 20% of autistic children equals four, then there could only be 20 autistic children, but the survey suggests that there were twice that many in unvaccinated children. (One wonders what Tony Bateson would say.) In any case, a prevalence of 0.57%, even if this survey were accurate, would be within the range of estimated prevalences found in various studies. Perhaps Bachmair knows that, which is why he tried to emphasize “severe” autism and then came up with those additional factoids about some of these four to suggest that they had been exposed to mercury or heavy metals. Even worse for Bachmair, if you look at the graph of autism by age range in these children, depending on the age range it ranges from 0.37% to a whopping 2.36%, the latter of which is almost as high as a recent study in Korea found. In fact, if you look at the age range of the responses, nearly half of the responses (3,075) were for children under two years old, which is young enough that autism might very well have not been diagnosed yet, and in this group the reported prevalence was 0.37%, while in the 11-12 year range the prevalence was highest, at 2.36%. In fact, autism prevalence is so obviously not appreciably different in the unvaccinated in this survey compared to reported prevalence numbers that even a commenter at Age of Autism wrote:

If you look at all the age groups >2 years old the autism incidence ranges from 0.63 to 2.36%, with most being in the range 1-2%, the population size was about 3500 replies. My main criticism is a self selected population with potentially varying diagnostic criteria, but on these data the incidence of autism in unvaccinated children seems to match vaccinated children.

There’s no “seems” about it. The prevalence of autism in unvaccinated children in this survey does closely match reported numbers for overall population prevalence in populations where the vast majority of children are vaccinated. This result is an unmitigated disaster for Bachmair and his groupies, which is why I couldn’t stop laughing when I read this from ChildHealthSafety:

It is interesting neither the US National Institutes of Health [US$30.5 billion annual budget on medical research] nor the US Centers for Disease Control [US$11 billion budget annually] could find the time or money to fund this kind of research but instead waste US tax dollars on a great deal of pointless medical research and promotion of iatrogenic [man made] disease causing agents [modern drug company “treatments”].

No, it’s not really that interesting. Say what you will about the NIH, it does have a pretty rigorous peer review process, which means that it doesn’t (usually) fund crap. In fact, this survey was so poorly designed and analyzed that I doubt even the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) would fund it. Unfortunately, now this “study” will no doubt join the Generation Rescue “study” in the annals of crap vaccine/autism science, to circulate around (where it belongs) and be dredged up as “evidence” periodically. Old, refuted anti-vaccine studies never die, alas.

In any case, I take some comfort in the hilarious result of this survey that demonstrates that autism prevalence in the unvaccinated is similar to autism prevalence among the vaccinated, no matter how much anti-vaccine activists try to spin it otherwise. I realize that this survey is in fact so poorly designed that it really doesn’t tell us much of anything, but it is fun watching anti-vaxer brains explode trying to spin this result as supporting the vaccine/autism hypothesis.

The enjoyment I get watching that assuages my guilt for picking on homeopaths so.

NOTE: I notice that the total number of children is increasing. It’s now up to 7,799 at this moment, suggesting that 30 people have filled it out since last night. Given that Child Health Safety lists it as 7,724 five days ago that suggests that the surveys still open and is automatically updating totals.



  1. #1 JGC
    May 16, 2012

    What debate do you feel needs to be resolved, oldpatriot? With respect to homeopathy the debate is settled: not only is there absolutely no credible evidence it works, but for it to work as describied (prinicple of similars, law of infinitesimals, etc.) not only would everything we know about molecules, dilution, chemistry, biology, etc., have to be wrong it would have to be spectacularly wrong.

    And while it’s true our understanding of the natural universe contimues to be expanded and refined, science isn’t always changing positions: instead it’s quite rare that a well established model has to be abandoned in light of new observations.

  2. #2 lilady
    May 16, 2012

    “Science is always changing positions based on new evidence and studies.”

    Perhaps “oldpatriot” could apply that statement to epidemiological studies and answer “Gray Falcon’s” questions about measles and polio incidence before vaccines were developed…and after vaccines were developed, to prevent these diseases.

  3. #3 Beamup
    May 16, 2012

    @ JGC:

    Not only is there absolutely no credible evidence it works, there is a great deal of direct evidence that it does not.

  4. #4 Joyce
    May 17, 2012

    If your collective goal on both sides of the fence is to keep kids safe and if you are all so certain you are correct then WHY not collectively advocate for a comprehensive study of unvaccinated vs vaccinated that meets all of your strict, flaw proof criteria?

    Why continue to attack and undermine attempts at data collection? Any effort at solving this mystery is better than NONE.

    I do not understand the unwillingness on the pro-vax side to seek definitive answers. There have been NO STUDIES the answer the mystery. Only very busy attempts to thwart every effort. Your pro-vax studies are just as easy to tear apart and discredit because they also do not address the critical issue. To claim otherwise is so dishonest and biased.

  5. #5 Vicki
    May 17, 2012


    It is precisely because we want to keep people—not just kids, people of all ages—safe that we aren’t advocating a vaccinated-versus-unvaccinated study of the sort you are calling for. Such a study would risk large numbers of lives, to confirm what we already know. You cannot ethically do a study of that deprives half the subjects of life-saving treatment, giving them only a placebo, in order to confirm that people who don’t get the treatment are more likely to die.

    We don’t re-confirm the need for clean water by deliberately giving randomly selected children water that contains feces and cholera. And we don’t confirm that bullet wounds are bad for you by grabbing volunteers, shooting some of them from 10 meters, and firing guns with blanks at the rest.

    If someone proposed either of the things in the paragraph above, both doctors and laypeople would be justly horrified.

    We already know that vaccines save lives and that they don’t cause autism. If you were saying “run a test, because I’d rather my child be dead than autistic,” that would be bad enough. What you’re actually asking is that we run a test, because you’d rather your child be blind and autistic than sighed and autistic, you’d rather they be miserable with chicken pox and autistic than be autistic but not suffer chicken pox.

  6. #6 JGC
    May 17, 2012

    If your collective goal on both sides of the fence is to keep kids safe and if you are all so certain you are correct then WHY not collectively advocate for a comprehensive study of unvaccinated vs vaccinated that meets all of your strict, flaw proof criteria?

    Two reasons: it would be unethical and it isn’t necessary.

    It would be unethical to conduct a study where children were given placebo injection in lieu of routine childhood immunizations because doing so places them at risk of serious illness, injury or death.

    It also isn’t necessary to conduct such a comprehensive study, given that we already have an extremely large body of evidence from a multitude of previous studies assessing the safety and efficacy of immunization.

    There have been NO STUDIES the answer the mystery.

    Yes, there have: every vaccine approved by the FDA and/or EMEA for marketing and use has been through Phase I, II and II clinical trials. Large scale epidemiologic studies assessing the safetty of vaccines post-approval have been completed as well (for example, Hviid et all looked at every child born in Denmark between 1990 and 1996–a total of 467,000 individuals–when investigating a possible association between thimerosal adjuvants and autism). Add to that the fact that post-marketing surveillance continues to monitor vaccine safety: your ‘mystery’ is being rigorpusly addressed without the need to conduct unethical trials.

  7. #7 novalox
    May 17, 2012


    Your pro-vax studies are just as easy to tear apart and discredit because they also do not address the critical issue.

    [citation needed] from a well-regarded scientific journal, or you are just another brain dead anti-vaxer.

  8. #8 Lawrence
    May 17, 2012

    @Joyce – You do understand that such a study as the anti-vax folks advocate would be the same as what was done during the infamous “Tuskegee Study,” don’t you?

    It would require a large number of children in a “double-blind” environment, where 1/2 would receive vaccines and the other would receive nothing but placebos. If there was an outbreak of disease, such as measles or mumps among the groups, it would be impossible to know, as a parent, if my child was actually protected.

    If one or more of these children died or was seriously harmed by becoming infected, it would be a serious lapse in ethics (not that the study itself would be a serious lapse as well).

    Please care to explain how this type of study could be done ethically, to the standards that are demanded?

  9. #9 Dimitri
    May 18, 2012

    Hello! I really appreciate the scientific analysis that you propose on this issue. owever, being a father of a six month baby boy, I still don’t feel secure about vaccines. There are several reasons for this, but the main reason is that I witness very often manipulation of the info in the mass media. More reasons : Can we trust our doctors when they get percentage for promoting certain drugs? I also found numerous articles on google scholar on social control through medical practice and methodology, since the 18th century! Wouldn’t it be more scientific of you to put these findings in test mode in a larger socio-economic and historical context? Two recent scandals in France show how far the pharmaceutical lobby can go for cash : Flu A and Mediator…It’s easy as you say, to attack worrying citizens who maybe react to manipulation by…manipulating facts also. In advertising, false scandals create effective publicity…Calling someone “stupid” publicly belongs to a scientific deontology?!
    What about the long term effects : are there studies that examine the immune system response to inflammation of vaxed population? and is it even possible to conduct such a study? If it’s anethical to make a study as cited many times above, wouldn’t we have to apply the precautionary principle? I also saw a documentary on french national TV where one of the old members of Pasteur institut was upset about replacing the calcium phosphate in the vaccines by aluminium… Why put inside something potentially toxic instead of something non toxic? And finally about the capacity of scientists to conduct non biased info : is it true that Monsanto has bought Beeologics laboratory, after being accused for the death of bees?! (If that’s true, I don’t need to comment…) I have not decided yet who’s right or wrong, but I know things are not just black or white, and I keep searching. I hope you too.

  10. #10 Julian Frost
    May 18, 2012


    Can we trust our doctors when they get percentage for promoting certain drugs?

    Do they? I’d like to see evidence of that, particularly since there are rules preventing that.

    What about the long term effects : are there studies that examine the immune system response to inflammation of vaxed population? and is it even possible to conduct such a study?

    Probably. You’d have to check on PubMed though.

    If it’s anethical to make a study as cited many times above, wouldn’t we have to apply the precautionary principle?

    The effectiveness of vaccines in reducing the incidence of disease has been demonstrated multiple times in the real world. You forget that not vaccinating has major risks. In fact, the Precautionary Principle argues for vaccination, not against it.

    Why put inside something potentially toxic instead of something non toxic?

    The dose makes the poison. The amount of aluminium salt in the entire schedule is less than you would get from eating a banana. The reason for adding an adjuvant is that it heightens the immune response, lowering the amount of biological material needed in the vaccine.
    I hope I have answered your questions satisfactorily.

New comments have been disabled.