I was curious about this same topic, when newly awakened in 2022. So I looked up the WHO and CDC investigation of Childhood immunizations. It must've taken me a hour to dig through all the non-profits and "protective institutions" to find one that had research papers.
But find it I did. As I read the foreword, I came across a note on how the data was prepared: data on Adverse Events was recorded commensurate with "first post-natal menstrual cycle of the mother."
That "creative accounting" told me everything that I wanted to know. The graphs of "child age" and "post-natal menstrual cycle" did not line up. The spike in SIDS was one month separated from the immunizations. They were lying with the method of presentation.
I wished that I had saved the research paper. I also might have, but I don't have time to dig for it now...
I was curious about this same topic, when newly awakened in 2022. So I looked up the WHO and CDC investigation of Childhood immunizations. It must've taken me a hour to dig through all the non-profits and "protective institutions" to find one that had research papers.
But find it I did. As I read the foreword, I came across a note on how the data was prepared: data on Adverse Events was recorded commensurate with "first post-natal menstrual cycle of the mother."
That "creative accounting" told me everything that I wanted to know. The graphs of "child age" and "post-natal menstrual cycle" did not line up. The spike in SIDS was one month separated from the immunizations. They were lying with the method of presentation.
I wished that I had saved the research paper. I also might have, but I don't have time to dig for it now...
There are more than a few papers they publish where the method is clearly flawed or the conclusion is obviously covering up the data.
Sometimes it’s bad enough that it’s obvious to us laypeople. How often is it obvious to people who are actually trained and work in that field?