2020 · Sage Open Medicine
Analysis of health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children: Developmental delays, asthma, ear infections and gastrointestinal disorders
Verdict
SCIENTIFIC
The study follows the scientific method and does not operate inside a theoretical framework. The verdict is scientific.
1·Study methodology · no theoretical framework
SCIENTIFIC
Follows the scientific method. No theoretical framework attached.
2·Paradigm · Basic Epidemiological Comparison
NOT APPLICABLE
No theoretical framework. The study verdict decides.
How the verdict is decided
This study does not operate inside a theoretical framework. Using hospital records, billing codes, or diagnostic names as labels on visible events is not the same as depending on that framework. The verdict is the study methodology score alone.
1·Study methodology
Did this study test its claim with methods that are independent, falsifiable, and non-circular?
SCIENTIFIC
This study claims that children vaccinated in their first year had much higher odds of developmental delays, asthma and ear infections than unvaccinated children, and that more doses meant higher odds. All three tests pass.
Independently Verifiable
Pass
The only step where a label enters is a clinician typing a diagnosis code on a visit, and a stranger can recount the charted injections and charted visits without joining any theory.
Falsifiable
Pass
Raw counts side by side could have shown no difference, and the gut inflammation and head injury comparisons did come out flat and were reported that way.
Non-Circular
Pass
Vaccine status came from injection entries and outcomes from diagnosis entries, and neither was built from the claim that vaccination raises those diagnoses.
Why
They pulled charts from three pediatric practices for 2,047 children aged three or older. A child counted as vaccinated if the chart showed any vaccine entry before the first birthday plus 15 days, and unvaccinated if it showed none. Then they counted children later charted with developmental delay, asthma or ear infection and compared the two groups, with head injury as a comparison that should not move. Developmental delay was 153 of 1,407 against 34 of 630. The counts could have come out level and two outcomes did, so the claim could have died. The weakest link is the delay code, which a clinician applies by criteria. Asthma and ear infection are labels on visits.
2·Paradigm · Basic Epidemiological Comparison
The three tests do not apply. There is no theoretical framework.
NOT APPLICABLE
Why
The paper never tests why vaccination would raise any diagnosis. It does not use germ theory, immune memory or any mechanism to build the groups or read the outcomes. The groups are children who already were or were not injected, and the outcome is whether a visit carried a diagnosis code. Billing and diagnosis codes here are filing labels on visits, not a theoretical commitment. Someone who rejects virology and immunology entirely would read the same table the same way. With no framework in use, the study verdict stands alone.
From the study
Patients in the “vaccinated” category received a minimum of one vaccine dose prior to their first birthday plus 15 days to capture 1-year vaccines as recommended in the CDC schedule, whereas “unvaccinated” patients had no vaccine doses on record prior to their first birthday plus 15 days.
Head injury was included as a negative control outcome, or control diagnosis, presumed not to be associated with vaccination status.
No covariates were considered in this model due to the lack of availability of relevant maternal and birth data.
No relationship was observed for gastrointestinal disorders and head injuries (the control diagnosis).