Hundreds Of CA Children Sent Home On First Day Of School Due To New Vaccination Law [Rev 18]

CBS SF Bay Area ^ | 8/22/2016 | Staff

[Jan_Sobieski]

OAKLAND (KPIX 5) — Scores of California students may be sent home on their first day of school because of a new vaccine law that took effect this year. The new state law took effect July 1. Now, parents can no longer use personal or religious beliefs as a reason not to have their kids immunized. This school year, kindergartners and seventh graders must show proof of immunizations.

Monday WAS the first day of school for kids in Oakland. Hundreds of them were expected to be sent home.

"There could be a few hundred kids that are not immunized and so we'll be encouraging them as quickly as possible to get out there," said Oakland Unified School District John Sasaki. "Their parents may try to drop them off and we'll have to turn them away."

Young children who got their personal belief exemptions approved before January 2016, will be grandfathered in. According to the new law, they still must get immunized when they reach seventh grade...

[exDemMom]

Once again, you are selecting the wrong venue for spreading anti-vax propaganda and lies.

Remember what I said before, about how finding a statistical correlation between two events means nothing? That is true for both of these articles that you dug up.

Let me remind you: due to the nature of statistical analysis, one out of twenty statistically significant correlations is completely spurious. That is, it is not a real relationship between the two compared factors, but is purely a result of random chance.

The article where the authors describe doing logistic regression and finding a correlation between neonate hepB vaccination and autism diagnosis no doubts reflects the only "positive" result that they got from doing several logistic regressions between a number of different variables. Due to the nature of random distribution, they were going to find a statistical correlation eventually, all they had to do was keep testing different situations. "Let's regress MMR vaccine administration at age 1 year... nothing. Okay, let's regress polio vaccination at age 2 months... nothing. Okay. let's regress hepB vaccination at birth... nothing."

And so forth, changing the variables until they finally found a statistical association when they limited the regression by gender, within a 5 year period. The thing is, they would have found an association eventually, they just had to find the "right" combination of variables. And it means *nothing.* They found an artifact of random distribution, that is all.

And if you have any doubts, just look for follow-on articles. Had they found a real result, there would be follow-on studies to explore the topic further--for instance, to establish a mechanism (that is, how administering a hepB vaccine, but only to a male neonate, causes an increased susceptibility to autism). But there has not been a single study since then to establish that the correlation described in that isolated paper is anything but spurious.

The same kind of analysis applies to the supposed connection between use of polio vaccine containing SV40 and later cancers. If you look at the types of cancers that article claims are associated with use of the polio vaccine, they are extremely rare cancers. What this means statistically is that the numbers are so low that any analysis of them is unreliable. For example, if you want to establish that a coin is equally likely to fall on either side, but you only toss the coin three times, a mathematical analysis of your hypothesis is impossible. On top of that, the nature of random distribution makes finding a statistical correlation inevitable when you compare several different variables and keep changing the groups being compared.

As I said before, statistical analysis is not a method to establish a scientific result, although it can, in some cases, reveal a potential area of research. When real scientists design and conduct research, they use statistics to validate their scientific results. And they disregard experimental results when the statistics don't support them. Conversely, authors who publish papers using statistical analysis without any experimental data to support their claims are almost never trained research scientists.

Let me remind you: in order for A to cause B, there must be a clear mechanism involved. Although many authors have looked for and found statistical correlations between SV40 (or the SV40 contaminated polio vaccines) and cancers, their findings are inconsistent and no one has established any plausible mechanism by which SV40 could cause cancer. If there were a real association between SV40 and cancer, then group A looking at data set A would find a correlation, and group B looking at data set B (identical in composition to data set A, but completely different sample set) would also find a correlation, and group C looking at data set C would also find one, etc. And group H would start exploring mechanisms and probably find one, since multiple independent analyses with the same result suggest that the correlation is based on a physical process. But the lack of consistent correlations between SV40 and any cancer indicates that any correlations found so far are spurious.

Oh, BTW, I will not apologize for debunking anti-vax propaganda. There is absolutely no reason to regret saving children's lives. The leaders of the anti-vax movement want more children to die--they are motivated by the radical leftist desire to rid the earth of human beings. Why on earth should I help them in that cause?