Authors of ‘Astonishing’ Study Showing Unvaccinated Kids Are Healthier Refused to Go Public With Results

[NOLA Dude]

Fake as a hooker's smile...

Provide the evidence for your claim.

 

[NOLA Dude]

There's been data studies. You just don't accept them because you already determine there's something more nefarious going on.

Studies that were funded by the vaccine manufacturers.

It's always the same thing with conspiracy people. People still think we have a shadow government that's controlling everything.

A study you don't like isn't a conspiracy theory.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Peer reviewed studies are the gold standard for scientific literature. It is not surprising that anti-science quacks would say that.

Replication is more important than peer review.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Major thread fail by the OP.

But, that's what happens when you use CTers as your sources.

Yet another swing and miss by you. Dr Jake Scott was humiliated at the hearing when it was clear he didn't know how mrna worked and Senator Johnson had to explain it to him.



Senator Ron Johnson has to walk Dr Jake Scott through how mRNA vaccines work, because he doesn't have a clear understanding of the mechanism's of the technology and still thinks it "primarily" stays at the injection site

Pfizer's very own bio distribution data freely available, shows it goes EVERYWHERE, including crossing the blood brain barrier and going to the adrenal glands and ovaries. This is embarrassing

 

[NOLA Dude]

The fraud Dr Jake Scott just deleted his X profile. I'm not surprised. He humiliated himself at the hearing.

 

[Gordy327]

Provide the evidence for your claim.

You first! Then post #131.

 

[iguanaman]

Replication is more important than peer review.

Correlation studies are far too easily manipulated to give the results they want. There have been many of them and all have been rejected including the one you cited. Real scientific studies have shown that unvaccinated kids are hospitalized more and that vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccination has saved many 100's of millions of lives since it discovery.
It is unfair to clog up out hospitals with the offspring of morons who fall for such stupid CT's. I think children sick with preventable diseases should be sent home to let their parents care for them. They made the choice to abandon modern medicine and should face the consequences all by their lonesome. We can't afford this stupidity.

• Lives saved: A 2024 study in The Lancet estimated that routine childhood vaccinations have saved 154 million lives since 1974.
• Reduced child mortality: This same study found that vaccines accounted for 40% of the global reduction in infant mortality over the last 50 years.
• Eradication: The global vaccination campaign led to the eradication of smallpox, which once killed hundreds of millions of people.
• Reduced hospitalization: In the United States, routine childhood vaccinations administered between 1994 and 2023 will prevent an estimated 32 million hospitalizations.
• Economic savings: In the U.S., the same period of childhood vaccinations will produce a net societal savings of $2.7 trillion, according to a 2024 CDC report.

Continuing importance
The ongoing success of vaccination is built on continuous research and public health efforts. While new vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, are developed using modern techniques, the fundamental principles established by earlier scientists still apply. Vaccines remain a crucial tool in preventing infectious disease outbreaks and protecting vulnerable populations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vac...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[NOLA Dude]

Correlation studies are far too easily manipulated to give the results they want. There have been many of them and all have been rejected including the one you cited.

That's not true

Real scientific studies have shown that unvaccinated kids are hospitalized more and that vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccination has saved many 100's of millions of lives since it discovery.

• Lives saved: A 2024 study in The Lancet estimated that routine childhood vaccinations have saved 154 million lives since 1974.
• Reduced child mortality: This same study found that vaccines accounted for 40% of the global reduction in infant mortality over the last 50 years.
• Eradication: The global vaccination campaign led to the eradication of smallpox, which once killed hundreds of millions of people.
• Reduced hospitalization: In the United States, routine childhood vaccinations administered between 1994 and 2023 will prevent an estimated 32 million hospitalizations.
• Economic savings: In the U.S., the same period of childhood vaccinations will produce a net societal savings of $2.7 trillion, according to a 2024 CDC report.

Continuing importance
The ongoing success of vaccination is built on continuous research and public health efforts. While new vaccines, such as those for COVID-19, are developed using modern techniques, the fundamental principles established by earlier scientists still apply. Vaccines remain a crucial tool in preventing infectious disease outbreaks and protecting vulnerable populations.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vac...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

A study by Gavi? You can't be serious? Bill Gates funded studies?

 

[iguanaman]

That's not true

A study by Gavi? You can't be serious? Bill Gates funded studies?

But "studies" funded by quacks are golden? Noticed I put studies in quotes because they violate the cardinal rule of science and run these "studies" with a desired outcome in mind. You can make such studies "prove" anything but you can't get them peer reviewed.

 

[NOLA Dude]

You first! Then post #131.

That's answered in the first post in the thread. Did you even bother looking at it? You want the peer review for the study the authors refused to publish? Haha

 

[NOLA Dude]

But studies funded by quacks are golden?

We want studies that aren't funded by the industries with a stake in the outcomes. Are you familiar with the term conflicts of interest?

 

[iguanaman]

We want studies that aren't funded by the industries with a stake in the outcomes. Are you familiar with the term conflicts of interest?

LOL You don't think RFK jr. has made money from his anti-vax stance? It has been a goldmine for him. There is big money in grifting foolish and gullible people. Trump has found that out too. Vaccines are not generally high profit items either. The price per dose has to be kept low for them to be effective. It is funny when I hear the same people complain that "big pharma" is not interested in cures for disease while lying about the most effective cures for diseases ever invented. Vaccines prevent the disease from ever happening, where's the money in that?


Evidence shows that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has received substantial income from his anti-vaccine activities through his leadership of the nonprofit Children's Health Defense, book deals, speaking fees, and legal work.
Children's Health Defense

• Compensation: Financial disclosures indicate that Kennedy received a salary from the anti-vaccine nonprofit Children's Health Defense (CHD) until he declared his presidential candidacy in 2023. For example, a 2023 financial disclosure revealed he earned over $500,000 annually from the organization. The nonprofit's revenue significantly increased as it gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, although it later declined after he stepped away.
• Legal work and referrals: Under Kennedy's leadership, CHD pursued lawsuits challenging vaccine requirements and public health measures. The organization has also been cited for encouraging parents to contact the law firm Wisner Baum if they believe their child was harmed by the HPV vaccine, a process that generated referral fees for Kennedy.

Book deals

• Advancements and fees: Kennedy has earned millions from book deals with Skyhorse Publishing, which has published several of his anti-vaccine titles, including The Real Anthony Fauci and Vax-Unvax.
• Millions in advances: As of early 2025, his financial disclosures revealed advances of between $2 million and $4 million from Skyhorse for two new books.

Law firm payments

• Referral fees: Since 2022, Kennedy has earned approximately $2.5 million in referral fees from the law firm Wisner Baum for clients he brought to lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, particularly those concerning the HPV vaccine Gardasil.
• Profit sharing: A 2023 New York Times report revealed an arrangement where Kennedy would supplement his CHD salary by sharing proceeds from outside legal work with the organization. During his Senate confirmation hearings in January 2025, it was noted he would retain his interest in these types of contingency cases.

Speaking fees

• High demand and rates: Before his presidential run, Kennedy commanded high fees for speaking engagements, reportedly earning as much as $250,000 for international talks and at least $25,000 for others.

Kennedy's anti-vaccine advocacy has been consistently controversial and has drawn sharp criticism from the medical and scientific communities, which widely support the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

https://www.google.com/search?q=RFK...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[NOLA Dude]

So your argument is: the system works, science has multiple ways to correct errors, and as a result it can't be trusted? Do you even realize the absurdity of your argument? Meanwhile, you're defending a study that had no review simply because you believe they would have been attacked, but the reality is they never even tried and avoided the very system that may have validated their claims.

Not at all. The system is corrupt and captured by the industries that are supposed to be regulated.

I didn't make the claim they would be attacked. That was stated under oath by Siri. I'm aware they didn't try. I posted that in the OP.

No, I don't agree with your conclusions, but that's not merely opinion. It's based on my profession and my experience submitting scientific papers. You admitted you have no such experience. My argument about your lack of experience with publishing wasn't a strawman. I was pointing to your lack of understanding in how the process works. The Henry Ford study avoided the system because grand standing with invalid data grants them validity with people like yourself who take things at face value. Again, you're being duped.

You have no evidence they didn't publish it because of invalid data grants. That's just your opinion. Siri testified under oath about why they didn't publish the study.

And the same scientific rigor applies to your examples with the medical board. Sure, oversight can overstep, but the end result was the system clearing the medical professionals in cases where it occurred. Why don't you trust the system if it's functioning as expected outside some turbulence with overzealous investigations?

Because in many cases the system is corrupt and it serves big pharma, the medical industry, insurance companies while they don't give one shit about patients. The system cares about . That doesn't mean every doctor or most doctors are corrupt but the system they operate in is definitely corrupt.

It was way more than just an overstep during covid.

 

[NOLA Dude]

LOL You don't think RFK jr. has made money from his anti-vax stance? It has been a goldmine for him. There is big money in grifting foolish and gullible people. Trump has found that out too. Vaccines are not generally high profit items either. The price per dose has to be kept low for them to be effective. It is funny when I hear the same people complain that "big pharma" is not interested in cures for disease while lying about the most effective cures for diseases ever invented. Vaccines prevent the disease from ever happening, where's the money in that?


Evidence shows that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has received substantial income from his anti-vaccine activities through his leadership of the nonprofit Children's Health Defense, book deals, speaking fees, and legal work.
Children's Health Defense

• Compensation: Financial disclosures indicate that Kennedy received a salary from the anti-vaccine nonprofit Children's Health Defense (CHD) until he declared his presidential candidacy in 2023. For example, a 2023 financial disclosure revealed he earned over $500,000 annually from the organization. The nonprofit's revenue significantly increased as it gained prominence during the COVID-19 pandemic, although it later declined after he stepped away.
• Legal work and referrals: Under Kennedy's leadership, CHD pursued lawsuits challenging vaccine requirements and public health measures. The organization has also been cited for encouraging parents to contact the law firm Wisner Baum if they believe their child was harmed by the HPV vaccine, a process that generated referral fees for Kennedy.

Book deals

• Advancements and fees: Kennedy has earned millions from book deals with Skyhorse Publishing, which has published several of his anti-vaccine titles, including The Real Anthony Fauci and Vax-Unvax.
• Millions in advances: As of early 2025, his financial disclosures revealed advances of between $2 million and $4 million from Skyhorse for two new books.

Law firm payments

• Referral fees: Since 2022, Kennedy has earned approximately $2.5 million in referral fees from the law firm Wisner Baum for clients he brought to lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, particularly those concerning the HPV vaccine Gardasil.
• Profit sharing: A 2023 New York Times report revealed an arrangement where Kennedy would supplement his CHD salary by sharing proceeds from outside legal work with the organization. During his Senate confirmation hearings in January 2025, it was noted he would retain his interest in these types of contingency cases.

Speaking fees

• High demand and rates: Before his presidential run, Kennedy commanded high fees for speaking engagements, reportedly earning as much as $250,000 for international talks and at least $25,000 for others.

Kennedy's anti-vaccine advocacy has been consistently controversial and has drawn sharp criticism from the medical and scientific communities, which widely support the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

https://www.google.com/search?q=RFK...1C1CHBD_enUS882US882&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Your goalpost shifting is noted. We were talking about studies funded by a company that has a stake in the results. RFK has never funded any studies.

Omg, RFK earned money as a lawyer and writing books. Wow

Vaccine revenues in 2024 in the US was 30 billion.

 

[iguanaman]

Your goalpost shifting is noted. We were talking about studies funded by a company that has a stake in the results. RFK has never funded any studies.

Omg, RFK earned money as a lawyer and writing books. Wow

Vaccine revenues in 2024 in the US was 30 billion.

RFK has made a fortune spreading lies about vaccines and all others associated with the anti-vax movement are the same. They are making money by killing people and you support that.

Pharma makes more than $30 billion a year on immunosuppressant drugs alone. That is peanuts


As of 2023, the global immunosuppressant drug market generated revenues between $27.79 billion and $35.3 billion, with most reports placing the value at the lower end of this range. Variations in reporting are likely due to different market analysis methodologies, as specific drug categories overlap or are excluded.
It is also important to note that the broader "immunology" market is much larger, valued at about $97.58 billion in 2023. The immunosuppressant market is a significant segment of this total.

Revenue for top-selling immunosuppressant drugs in 2023
Several blockbuster drugs heavily contributed to pharmaceutical companies' revenue, despite increased competition from biosimilars. Some of the top-performing immunosuppressants included:

• Humira (AbbVie): $14.4 billion.
• Stelara (Johnson & Johnson): $11.31 billion.
• Dupixent (Regeneron and Sanofi): $11.59 billion.
• Skyrizi (AbbVie): $7.76 billion.
• Ocrevus (Roche): $7.10 billion.
• Entyvio (Takeda): $5.28 billion.
• Cosentyx (Novartis): $4.98 billion.
• Enbrel (Amgen): $4.53 billion.
• Rinvoq (AbbVie): $3.97 billion.
• Orencia (Bristol Myers Squibb): $3.60 billion.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...IIsAIB8QUT8JP7EBQHGg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[NOLA Dude]

RFK has made a fortune spreading lies about vaccines and all others associated with the anti-vax movement are the same. They are making money by killing people and you support that.

Wanting safe vaccines isn't anti-vax. Thats big pharma propaganda. Are you anti-water?

Pharma makes more than $30 billion a year on immunosuppressant drugs alone. That is peanuts


As of 2023, the global immunosuppressant drug market generated revenues between $27.79 billion and $35.3 billion, with most reports placing the value at the lower end of this range. Variations in reporting are likely due to different market analysis methodologies, as specific drug categories overlap or are excluded.
It is also important to note that the broader "immunology" market is much larger, valued at about $97.58 billion in 2023. The immunosuppressant market is a significant segment of this total.

Revenue for top-selling immunosuppressant drugs in 2023
Several blockbuster drugs heavily contributed to pharmaceutical companies' revenue, despite increased competition from biosimilars. Some of the top-performing immunosuppressants included:

• Humira (AbbVie): $14.4 billion.
• Stelara (Johnson & Johnson): $11.31 billion.
• Dupixent (Regeneron and Sanofi): $11.59 billion.
• Skyrizi (AbbVie): $7.76 billion.
• Ocrevus (Roche): $7.10 billion.
• Entyvio (Takeda): $5.28 billion.
• Cosentyx (Novartis): $4.98 billion.
• Enbrel (Amgen): $4.53 billion.
• Rinvoq (AbbVie): $3.97 billion.
• Orencia (Bristol Myers Squibb): $3.60 billion.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how...IIsAIB8QUT8JP7EBQHGg&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That doesnt mean the 30 billion from vaccines is peanuts.

 

[iguanaman]

Wanting safe vaccines isn't anti-vax. Thats big pharma propaganda. Are you anti-water?

That doesnt mean the 30 billion from vaccines is peanuts.

Claiming safe vaccines are dangerous and telling people not to use them is murder. There is no proof of any of the false claims that anti-vaxxers use. It is all a hoax for profit. You aren't making a dime on this but you want to help those that do. Why be an accomplice to murder for nothing? Take my advice quit while you're ahead

 

[Xilnik]

Not at all. The system is corrupt and captured by the industries that are supposed to be regulated.

I didn't make the claim they would be attacked. That was stated under oath by Siri. I'm aware they didn't try. I posted that in the OP.

You have no evidence they didn't publish it because of invalid data grants. That's just your opinion. Siri testified under oath about why they didn't publish the study.

Because in many cases the system is corrupt and it serves big pharma, the medical industry, insurance companies while they don't give one shit about patients. The system cares about . That doesn't mean every doctor or most doctors are corrupt but the system they operate in is definitely corrupt.

It was way more than just an overstep during covid.

If the data was valid, it makes no sense to circumvent the system. I don't care whether testimony was made under oath by someone without a medical degree. His statements are only true to the best of his limited knowledge, which is suspect to begin with.

I concluded the data is likely garbage based on decades of experience that include multiple publications in reputable journals. You can dismiss that as opinion if it makes you feel better, but ignoring my experience is extremely disrespectful and ignorant. You're cherry-picking the portions of scientific process that validate your position while ignoring those that don't.

Also, you keep saying replication is more important than peer review. Science requires peer-reviewed methodology and replication in tandem. One without the other is questionable, and the Henry Ford study has neither. Stop spouting replication as if it somehow vindicates the study. It doesn't.

 

[NOLA Dude]

Claiming safe vaccines are dangerous and telling people not to use them is murder. There is no proof of any of the false claims that anti-vaxxers use. It is all a hoax for profit. You aren't making a dime on this but you want to help those that do. Why be an accomplice to murder for nothing? Take my advice quit while you're ahead

You can't claim they are safe when they never had long term placebo controlled safety studies on any vaccines on the childhood schedule.

 

[NOLA Dude]

If the data was valid, it makes no sense to circumvent the system. I don't care whether testimony was made under oath by someone without a medical degree. His statements are only true to the best of his limited knowledge, which is suspect to begin with.

What are you talking about. Siri and Bigtree are the ones who got the doctors to do the study.

I concluded the data is likely garbage based on decades of experience that include multiple publications in reputable journals. You can dismiss that as opinion if it makes you feel better, but ignoring my experience is extremely disrespectful and ignorant. You're cherry-picking the portions of scientific process that validate your position while ignoring those that don't.

It's your opinion because you don't have any evidence for you claim. That's not disrespectful or ignorant.

Also, you keep saying replication is more important than peer review. Science requires peer-reviewed methodology and replication in tandem. One without the other is questionable, and the Henry Ford study has neither. Stop spouting replication as if it somehow vindicates the study. It doesn't.

I did say that but I didn't say all was needed was replication. I know the talking point from the big pharma supporters is that it's not peer reviewed. No shit when the authors wouldn't publish the study. Peer review isn’t the holy grail like yall are claiming.

 

[Xilnik]

You can't claim they are safe when they never had long term placebo controlled safety studies on any vaccines on the childhood schedule.

A measles long term placebo efficacy and safety study was shared with you in another thread. You claimed it was only an efficacy study, making it very clear you have no clue what you're saying in these posts.

Post in thread 'Kennedy guts CDC's vaccine panel of independent experts'

Jul 17, 2025

Oh, you read them all, did you? A peer review is the gold standard, not placebo control.

Fact Checked: Childhood Vaccines Are Carefully Studied—Including with Placebos—to Ensure They’re Safe and Effective

Every vaccine recommended for children has undergone extensive research—including clinical trials that often use placebos or comparison groups—to ensure it is safe and effective. Once approved, vaccines continue to be monitored for safety.

www.aap.org

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00598-9/fulltext

You were saying?

Those placebo were used to test for efficacy and not for safety. Yet another swing and a miss by you.

Long term placebo controlled safety...

• NOLA Dude

 

[Xilnik]

What are you talking about. Siri and Bigtree are the ones who got the doctors to do the study.

It's your opinion because you don't have any evidence for you claim. That's not disrespectful or ignorant.

I did say that but I didn't say all was needed was replication. I know the talking point from the big pharma supporters is that it's not peer reviewed. No shit when the authors wouldn't publish the study. Peer review isn’t the holy grail like yall are claiming.

Siri and Bigtree pushed for a "study" no one has seen that unsurprisingly supported their claims about vaccines? I'm supposed to believe their testimony based on that? Confirmation bias isn't science!

The authors wouldn't submit the study because it was bogus. If they really had something, they could have submitted it anonymously, used preprint servers, or partnered with independent statisticians. The study is clearly as bogus as the testimonial that they were afraid of blowback.

 

[NOLA Dude]

A measles long term placebo efficacy and safety study was shared with you in another thread. You claimed it was only an efficacy study, making it very clear you have no clue what you're saying in these posts.

Post in thread 'Kennedy guts CDC's vaccine panel of independent experts'

Jul 17, 2025

Oh, you read them all, did you? A peer review is the gold standard, not placebo control.

Fact Checked: Childhood Vaccines Are Carefully Studied—Including with Placebos—to Ensure They’re Safe and Effective

Every vaccine recommended for children has undergone extensive research—including clinical trials that often use placebos or comparison groups—to ensure it is safe and effective. Once approved, vaccines continue to be monitored for safety.

www.aap.org

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(23)00598-9/fulltext

You were saying?

Those placebo were used to test for efficacy and not for safety. Yet another swing and a miss by you.

Long term placebo controlled safety...

• NOLA Dude

The link he provided didn't contain any studies that had long term placebo controlled safety studies. They did use placebo when they tested for efficacy. Since you think they did do the safety studies why don't you point out which ones did from his link:

Autism and Vaccines: Read the Science - Autism Science Foundation

Literature Reviews: Autism and Vaccines Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysishttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34049735June 2021 Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children...

autismsciencefoundation.org

 

[Gordy327]

Th

That's answered in the first post in the thread. Did you even bother looking at it? You want the peer review for the study the authors refused to publish? Haha

Here's only a claim. No actual citation of a study, its methodology, or expertise of the study or peer review. Try and fail again!

 

[NOLA Dude]

Siri and Bigtree pushed for a "study" no one has seen that unsurprisingly supported their claims about vaccines? I'm supposed to believe their testimony based on that? Confirmation bias isn't science!

I doubt you would believe anything negative about vaccines or big pharma.

The authors wouldn't submit the study because it was bogus. If they really had something, they could have submitted it anonymously, used preprint servers, or partnered with independent statisticians. The study is clearly as bogus as the testimonial that they were afraid of blowback.

There you go presenting your opinion and acting like its a fact. You have no evidence for your claim.