Yesterday I stumbled on the article with the great Title:
Vaccines Kill Children!
Well, sure they do... Although the mortality rate of the children today is the lowest ever recorded in human history, but, sure, vaccines kill children.
And here is the Graph 1:
Wow, the trendline goes UP! God Damn you Vaccines!
Wait for a second, and take a look at the X-axis. Just read:
There is the list of countries and the Trendline?!
Trendline to What?
If you put the USA left, the trendline would go down. If you put the USA in the middle, it will form a triangle or a flat line.
Seriously, what is this graph representing?!
If you take this very logical route, from Sweden to Japan then to Finland, Norway, Switzerland, suddenly go to Australia, from Australia to Canada and then you go to USA - there will be a trend. Secret connection?
And if you want to see the data, here is the Wiki page, just type: "infant mortality rate":
Now sort the table.
And, imagine how unexpected the results are!
The Lowest rates are observed in well-developed countries with a good healthcare system.
The USA is comparable to the Eastern Europe. Bad, but not terrible.
Tiny Slovenia kicked some much richer nations?
Let's plot some real data:
In the period from 1950 to 1955, 30.5 of 100.000 children died before the age of 5.
Today, that number in the USA is 6.0.
Vaccines are killing children!
Ok... 6 of them, but it is still the LOWEST, EVER.
Whoever designed that killer vaccine - he did it wrong.
I don't trust the data! You Illuminati puppet!
Ok, do your research! Seriously, take a pen and notebook and visit the nearest house for retired. Ask them how many kids they lost. Ask 100 of them. Then go to the park and ask 100 young moms. And compare the numbers.
Figure 2:
Let's suppose that this graph is true, that it contains real numbers.
Why there is no data for post-2003? There should be an immense growth? Or at least new plateau?
It the result can be between 25 and 12 (50 %), it can be expected, just by common sense, that it goes up as well to about 50.
Why this is not normalized to 100.000 children? The population is growing, if we have 100 deaths in the population of 1.000.000 and 200 deaths in 100.000.000 what is more dangerous? How anyone can compare the data which are not normalized (expressed per 100.000 people)?
Figure 3:
Nice graph, but this graph is cummulative.
So, if the number of deaths was 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 - Trendline Flat
The cummulative graph will show: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - Trendline Running Up!
I couldn't open that article. If you have pdf - send me
But, what I would like to know is - where is the control?
How big the sample was?
It says that 70 % of death occurs after the vaccine.
Fine...
It means that 30 % of deaths occur outside of this time window.
And Why is This Important?
Well, if you have 2 deaths in this time window and 1 outside - you have a bad statistics.
However, if you have 2000 and 1000 than you have the proof.
By the way:
Epidemiological evidence indicates infants immunized against diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) are at decreased risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
And here is my source:
https://academic.oup.com/femspd/article/25/1-2/183/438782
I'm not hiding my sources...
If I were Illuminati
And wanted to depopulate the planet.
I would never use vaccines.
Those would be incredibly inefficient.
The effects would have to appear after 20-30 years (impossible to make such poison).
Every single man can test them in any lab in the world for about 100 $ and show metals, viruses, whatever.
And keep one thing in mind...
The number of people is Record High.
The number of child deaths under the age of 5 is the Lowes Ever.
And it is Lower in the USA than in poor countries.
And yes, it is a bit higher than in the Top Countries.
And the average lifespan is longer and longer.
And the 90 years old grandpa from Serbia is doing free climbing!
And a 90 years old grandpa from France is pacing the bicycle at 30 kph for 1 hour
Where are all those negative effects?