2020 · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
RETRACTED: Relative Incidence of Office Visits and Cumulative Rates of Billed Diagnoses Along the Axis of Vaccination
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 vaccinated children have higher rates of billed office visits for numerous diagnoses compared to unvaccinated children, and that unvaccinated children are healthier overall. All three tests pass.
Independently Verifiable
Pass
A parent brought a child to the doctor and the visit was recorded, and anyone can count those records without accepting any theory of disease or vaccination.
Falsifiable
Pass
If vaccinated and unvaccinated children had the same number of office visits, the ratios would have been 1.0 and the claim would have been dead on arrival.
Non-Circular
Pass
The billing codes are labels applied to visible complaints after the fact, and the comparison of visit counts does not require the vaccine framework to be true before the arithmetic can run.
Why
The study counted office visits and billing codes in two groups of children sorted by vaccination status. A child wheezing, a child with a fever, a child with ear pain. Those are visible events. A doctor wrote a billing code on the record. The code is a label, not a theoretical commitment. Anyone can count those records without accepting any model of disease or vaccination. The comparison is arithmetic on recorded events. The groups were defined by a physical fact: whether a syringe filled with vaccine liquid was injected. That is a visible act. The outcomes were office visits, which are also visible acts. If vaccinated and unvaccinated children had the same number of visits, the ratios would have been 1.0 and the claim would have been dead. The study reported that some conditions lost significance after matching for days of care. That is a reported failure, not an escape hatch. The billing codes were not designed to prove what this study found. They are filing labels applied to complaints after the fact. The comparison would mean the same thing to someone who rejects the vaccine framework entirely. The premise went in clean and came out clean.
2·Paradigm · Basic Epidemiological Comparison
The three tests do not apply. There is no theoretical framework.
NOT APPLICABLE
Why
This study does not depend on a theoretical framework to produce its observations. It counts office visits and billing codes in two groups of children. A billing code is a filing label applied to a visible complaint. It is not a theoretical commitment. A child presenting with a fever or an earache is a visible event. Anyone can count those events without accepting any model of disease, vaccination, or pharmacology. The comparison is arithmetic on recorded data. The groups were defined by a physical fact: whether a vaccine was injected. That is a visible act that does not require a model to observe. Because the method is only counting visible events in defined groups, there is no paradigm to test. The three tests do not apply. The study verdict alone determines the final verdict.
From the study
The data source for this study was all billing and medical records of Integrative Pediatrics, a private pediatric practice located in Portland, Oregon.
Outcomes were represented by International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes
For each unvaccinated patient, a patient with identical or closest DOC values was selected (without bias) from among the more numerous vaccinated patients.
There were no cases of ADHD in the unvaccinated group.