[EDINVA]

Do you have any studies, real statistics, or reports to back up those statements that unvaccinated kids “are healthier, have better attendance an grades in school, and are not a problem?”

[daniel1212]

re high NME rates associated with preventable and costly disease outbreaks? Whereas measles was thought to have been eliminated from the US in 2000, we have seen local outbreaks of this vaccine-preventable disease and others, like measles and pertussis (whooping cough), in recent years due to inadequate immunization coverage in schools. For instance, a child with an NME from the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine is 35 times more likely to contract measles than is a vaccinated child [4]. Moreover, a child without the diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine is 3 times more likely to contract pertussis than is a vaccinated child [5]. NMEs weaken herd immunity that protects the population at large, particularly children who are unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons. The target vaccination coverage rate to achieve the ideal herd immunity is 90% to 95%, depending on the infectious agent [6].

Overall, states with more NME students exhibited lower MMR vaccination rates. In contrast, states that have banned NMEs—MS, CA, and WV—exhibit the highest MMR vaccine uptake and lowest incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases. - http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002578

[hinckley buzzard]

Of course he doesn't. Antivaxxers are the intellectual heirs to the crop circle nuts and the chemtrail fanatics. They don't need no damn facts, their minds are made up.

[spintreebob]

I could send you studies by a well known IT company famous for its use of AI in health. They started with the thesis that vaccines are effective and cost effective. Then they cherry picked the data (my data) to prove it. They proved absolutely nothing, not their thesis, the the opposite of their thesis.

I only have my 6 million person data right now, not everybody else’s data. But a cursory look at these studies reveals that they start with 2 motivations
1) Get published, get ego massaged
2) Get more funding by telling the funding source what it wants to hear. Tell me, how often does a funded study come up with the answer that the funding source does not want to hear? What is the statistical probability of that?

But I won’t share the study because I work with that big AI healthcare company and hope to steer the studies of “my” data to more factual and honest conclusions.