From Hell To Veins

August 27, 2015

National Library of Medicine’s Look Into Vaccines & The Rise In The United States’ Infant Mortality Rates


Vaccine researcher Neil Z Miller is on the cusp (as of August 2015) of releasing a ‘fully documented’ book on multiple studies that ‘scientifically’ refute the big pharma propaganda that vaccines are safe and effective.  The scientific documentation proves vaccines are anything BUT safe and effective.  This book will consolidate ALL the vaccine hazards information that the CDC (according to CDC whistle blower / vaccine researcher  Dr. William Thompson et al) threw in a garbage can to make the outrageous claim that vaccines were NOT responsible for chemical / heavy metal / viral poisoning (AKA Autism) in children who are vaccine victims.

When this vaccine ‘fact’ book get’s published, I strongly recommend that you get it out to everyone including your legislators who are being lobbied heavy by the drug dealers.


Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?


The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important indicators of the socio-economic well-being and public health conditions of a country. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of r = 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. Nations were also grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26. The mean IMRs of all nations within each group were then calculated. Linear regression analysis of unweighted mean IMRs showed a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates, with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009). Using the Tukey-Kramer test, statistically significant differences in mean IMRs were found between nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and those giving 21–23, and 24–26 doses. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs is essential.


The infant mortality rate (IMR) is one of the most important measures of child health and overall development in countries. Clean water, increased nutritional measures, better sanitation, and easy access to health care contribute the most to improving infant mortality rates in unclean, undernourished, and impoverished regions of the world.13 In developing nations, IMRs are high because these basic necessities for infant survival are lacking or unevenly distributed. Infectious and communicable diseases are more common in developing countries as well, though sound sanitary practices and proper nutrition would do much to prevent them.1

The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 7 out of 10 childhood deaths in developing countries to five main causes: pneumonia, diarrhea, measles, malaria, and malnutrition—the latter greatly affecting all the others.1 Malnutrition has been associated with a decrease in immune function. An impaired immune function often leads to an increased susceptibility to infection.2 It is well established that infections, no matter how mild, have adverse effects on nutritional status. Conversely, almost any nutritional deficiency will diminish resistance to disease.3

Despite the United States spending more per capita on health care than any other country,4 33 nations have better IMRs. Some countries have IMRs that are less than half the US rate: Singapore, Sweden, and Japan are below 2.80. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), “The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest infant mortality rates appears to be worsening.”5

There are many factors that affect the IMR of any given country. For example, premature births in the United States have increased by more than 20% between 1990 and 2006. Preterm babies have a higher risk of complications that could lead to death within the first year of life.6 However, this does not fully explain why the United States has seen little improvement in its IMR since 2000.7

Nations differ in their immunization requirements for infants aged less than 1 year. In 2009, five of the 34 nations with the best IMRs required 12 vaccine doses, the least amount, while the United States required 26 vaccine doses, the most of any nation. To explore the correlation between vaccine doses that nations routinely give to their infants and their infant mortality rates, a linear regression analysis was performed.

Methods and design

The infant mortality rate is expressed as the number of infant deaths per 1000 live births. According to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics throughout the world, in 2009 there were 33 nations with better infant mortality rates than the United States (Table 1).8 The US infant mortality rate of 6.22 infant deaths per 1000 live births ranked 34th.

Table 1.

2009 Infant mortality rates, top 34 nations8
Immunization schedules and vaccine doses

A literature review was conducted to determine the immunization schedules for the United States and all 33 nations with better IMRs than the United States.9,10 The total number of vaccine doses specified for infants aged less than 1 year was then determined for each country (Table 2). A vaccine dose is an exact amount of medicine or drug to be administered. The number of doses a child receives should not be confused with the number of ‘vaccines’ or ‘injections’ given. For example, DTaP is given as a single injection but contains three separate vaccines (for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) totaling three vaccine doses.

Table 2.

Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations

Table 2.

Summary of International Immunization Schedules: vaccines recommended/required prior to one year of age in 34 nations

Nations organized into data pairs

The 34 nations were organized into data pairs consisting of total number of vaccine doses specified for their infants and IMRs. Consistent with biostatistical conventions, four nations—Andorra, Liechenstein, Monaco, and San Marino—were excluded from the dataset because they each had fewer than five infant deaths, producing extremely wide confidence intervals and IMR instability. The remaining 30 (88%) of the data pairs were then available for analysis.

Nations organized into groups

Nations were placed into the following five groups based on the number of vaccine doses they routinely give their infants: 12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26 vaccine doses. The unweighted IMR means of all nations as a function of the number of vaccine doses were analyzed using linear regression. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) and coefficient of determination (r 2) were calculated using GraphPad Prism, version 5.03 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA, Additionally, the F statistic and corresponding p values were computed to test if the best fit slope was statistically significantly non-zero. The Tukey-Kramer test was used to determine whether or not the mean IMR differences between the groups were statistically significant. Following the one-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) results from the Tukey-Kramer test, a post test for the overall linear trend was performed.


Nations organized into data pairs

A scatter plot of each of the 30 nation’s IMR versus vaccine doses yielded a linear relationship with a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.46–0.85) and p < 0.0001 providing evidence of a positive correlation: IMR and vaccine doses tend to increase together. The F statistic applied to the slope [0.148 (95% CI, 0.090–0.206)] is significantly non-zero, with F = 27.2 (p < 0.0001; Figure 1).

Figure 1.

2009 Infant mortality rates and number of vaccine doses for 30 nations.

Nations organized into groups

The unweighted mean IMR of each category was computed by simply summing the IMRs of each nation comprising a group and dividing by the number of nations in that group. The IMRs were as follows: 3.36 (95% CI, 2.74–3.98) for nations specifying 12–14 doses (mean 13 doses); 3.89 (95% CI, 2.68–5.12) for 15–17 doses (mean 16 doses); 4.28 (95% CI, 3.80–4.76) for 18–20 doses (mean 19 doses); 4.97 (95% CI, 4.44–5.49) for 21–23 doses (mean 22 doses); 5.19 (95% CI, 4.06–6.31) for 24-26 doses (mean 25 doses; Figure 2). Linear regression analysis yielded an equation of the best fit line, y = 0.157x + 1.34 with r = 0.992 (p = 0.0009) and r 2 = 0.983. Thus, 98.3% of the variation in mean IMRs is explained by the linear model. Again, the F statistic yielded a significantly non-zero slope, with F = 173.9 (p = 0.0009).

Figure 2.

2009 Mean infant mortality rates and mean number of vaccine doses (five categories).

The one-way ANOVA using the Tukey-Kramer test yielded F = 650 with p = 0.001, indicating the five mean IMRs corresponding to the five defined dose categories are significantly different (r 2 = 0.510). Tukey’s multiple comparison test found statistical significance in the differences between the mean IMRs of those nations giving 12–14 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 21–23 doses (1.61, 95% CI, 0.457–2.75) and (b) those giving 24–26 doses (1.83, 95% CI, 0.542–3.11).


Basic necessities for infant survival

It is instructive to note that many developing nations require their infants to receive multiple vaccine doses and have national vaccine coverage rates (a percentage of the target population that has been vaccinated) of 90% or better, yet their IMRs are poor. For example, Gambia requires its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses during infancy and has a 91%–97% national vaccine coverage rate, yet its IMR is 68.8. Mongolia requires 22 vaccine doses during infancy, has a 95%–98% coverage rate, and an IMR of 39.9.8,9 These examples appear to confirm that IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. As developing nations improve in all of these areas a critical threshold will eventually be reached where further reductions of the infant mortality rate will be difficult to achieve because most of the susceptible infants that could have been saved from these causes would have been saved. Further reductions of the IMR must then be achieved in areas outside of these domains. As developing nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made.

Crossing the socio-economic threshold

It appears that at a certain stage in nations’ movement up the socio-economic scale—after the basic necessities for infant survival (proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and access to health care) have been met—a counter-intuitive relationship occurs between the number of vaccines given to infants and infant mortality rates: nations with higher (worse) infant mortality rates give their infants, on average, more vaccine doses. This positive correlation, derived from the data and demonstrated in Figures 1 and and2,2, elicits an important inquiry: are some infant deaths associated with over-vaccination?

A closer inspection of infant deaths

Many nations adhere to an agreed upon International Classification of Diseases (ICD) for grouping infant deaths into 130 categories.1113 Among the 34 nations analyzed, those that require the most vaccines tend to have the worst IMRs. Thus, we must ask important questions: is it possible that some nations are requiring too many vaccines for their infants and the additional vaccines are a toxic burden on their health? Are some deaths that are listed within the 130 infant mortality death categories really deaths that are associated with over-vaccination? Are some vaccine-related deaths hidden within the death tables?

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)

Prior to contemporary vaccination programs, ‘Crib death’ was so infrequent that it was not mentioned in infant mortality statistics. In the United States, national immunization campaigns were initiated in the 1960s when several new vaccines were introduced and actively recommended. For the first time in history, most US infants were required to receive several doses of DPT, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines.14 Shortly thereafter, in 1969, medical certifiers presented a new medical term—sudden infant death syndrome.15,16 In 1973, the National Center for Health Statistics added a new cause-of-death category—for SIDS—to the ICD. SIDS is defined as the sudden and unexpected death of an infant which remains unexplained after a thorough investigation. Although there are no specific symptoms associated with SIDS, an autopsy often reveals congestion and edema of the lungs and inflammatory changes in the respiratory system.17 By 1980, SIDS had become the leading cause of postneonatal mortality (deaths of infants from 28 days to one year old) in the United States.18

In 1992, to address the unacceptable SIDS rate, the American Academy of Pediatrics initiated a ‘Back to Sleep’ campaign, convincing parents to place their infants supine, rather than prone, during sleep. From 1992 to 2001, the postneonatal SIDS rate dropped by an average annual rate of 8.6%. However, other causes of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) increased. For example, the postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation in bed’ (ICD-9 code E913.0) increased during this same period at an average annual rate of 11.2%. The postneonatal mortality rate from ‘suffocation-other’ (ICD-9 code E913.1-E913.9), ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ (ICD-9 code 799.9), and due to ‘intent unknown’ in the External Causes of Injury section (ICD-9 code E980-E989), all increased during this period as well.18 (In Australia, Mitchell et al. observed that when the SIDS rate decreased, deaths attributed to asphyxia increased.19Overpeck et al. and others, reported similar observations.)20,21

A closer inspection of the more recent period from 1999 to 2001 reveals that the US postneonatal SIDS rate continued to decline, but there was no significant change in the total postneonatal mortality rate. During this period, the number of deaths attributed to ‘suffocation in bed’ and ‘unknown causes,’ increased significantly. According to Malloy and MacDorman, “If death-certifier preference has shifted such that previously classified SIDS deaths are now classified as ‘suffocation,’ the inclusion of these suffocation deaths and unknown or unspecified deaths with SIDS deaths then accounts for about 90 percent of the decline in the SIDS rate observed between 1999 and 2001 and results in a non-significant decline in SIDS”18 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Reclassification of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths to suffocation in bed and unknown causes. The postneonatal SIDS rate appears to have declined from 61.6 deaths (per 100,000 live births) in 1999 to 50.9 in 2001. 

Is there evidence linking SIDS to vaccines?

Although some studies were unable to find correlations between SIDS and vaccines,2224 there is some evidence that a subset of infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated. For example, Torch found that two-thirds of babies who had died from SIDS had been vaccinated against DPT (diphtheria–pertussis–tetanus toxoid) prior to death. Of these, 6.5% died within 12 hours of vaccination; 13% within 24 hours; 26% within 3 days; and 37%, 61%, and 70% within 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively. Torch also found that unvaccinated babies who died of SIDS did so most often in the fall or winter while vaccinated babies died most often at 2 and 4 months—the same ages when initial doses of DPT were given to infants. He concluded that DPT “may be a generally unrecognized major cause of sudden infant and early childhood death, and that the risks of immunization may outweigh its potential benefits. A need for re-evaluation and possible modification of current vaccination procedures is indicated by this study.”25Walker et al. found “the SIDS mortality rate in the period zero to three days following DPT to be 7.3 times that in the period beginning 30 days after immunization.”26 Fine and Chen reported that babies died at a rate nearly eight times greater than normal within 3 days after getting a DPT vaccination.27

Ottaviani et al. documented the case of a 3-month-old infant who died suddenly and unexpectedly shortly after being given six vaccines in a single shot: “Examination of the brainstem on serial sections revealed bilateral hypoplasia of the arcuate nucleus. The cardiac conduction system presented persistent fetal dispersion and resorptive degeneration. This case offers a unique insight into the possible role of hexavalent vaccine in triggering a lethal outcome in a vulnerable baby.” Without a full necropsy study in the case of sudden, unexpected infant death, at least some cases linked to vaccination are likely to go undetected.28

Reclassified infant deaths

It appears as though some infant deaths attributed to SIDS may be vaccine related, perhaps associated with biochemical or synergistic toxicity due to over-vaccination. Some infants’ deaths categorized as ‘suffocation’ or due to ‘unknown and unspecified causes’ may also be cases of SIDS reclassified within the ICD. Some of these infant deaths may be vaccine related as well. This trend toward reclassifying ICD data is a great concern of the CDC “because inaccurate or inconsistent cause-of-death determination and reporting hamper the ability to monitor national trends, ascertain risk factors, and design and evaluate programs to prevent these deaths.”29 If some infant deaths are vaccine related and concealed within the various ICD categories for SUIDs, is it possible that other vaccine-related infant deaths have also been reclassified?

Of the 34 nations that have crossed the socio-economic threshold and are able to provide the basic necessities for infant survival—clean water, nutrition, sanitation, and health care—several require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses and have relatively high infant mortality rates. These nations should take a closer look at their infant death tables to determine if some fatalities are possibly related to vaccines though reclassified as other causes. Of course, all SUID categories should be re-inspected. Other ICD categories may be related to vaccines as well. For example, a new live-virus orally administered vaccine against rotavirus-induced diarrhea—Rotarix®—was licensed by the European Medicine Agency in 2006 and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2008. However, in a clinical study that evaluated the safety of the Rotarix vaccine, vaccinated babies died at a higher rate than non-vaccinated babies—mainly due to a statistically significant increase in pneumonia-related fatalities.30 (One biologically plausible explanation is that natural rotavirus infection might have a protective effect against respiratory infection.)31 Although these fatalities appear to be vaccine related and raise a nation’s infant mortality rate, medical certifiers are likely to misclassify these deaths as pneumonia.

Several additional ICD categories are possible candidates for incorrect infant death classifications: unspecified viral diseases, diseases of the blood, septicemia, diseases of the nervous system, anoxic brain damage, other diseases of the nervous system, diseases of the respiratory system, influenza, and unspecified diseases of the respiratory system. All of these selected causes may be repositories of vaccine-related infant deaths reclassified as common fatalities. All nations—rich and poor, industrialized and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals. Progress on reducing infant mortality rates should include monitoring vaccine schedules and medical certification practices to ascertain whether vaccine-related infant deaths are being reclassified as ordinary mortality in the ICD.

How many infants can be saved with an improved IMR?

Slight improvements in IMRs can make a substantial difference. In 2009, there were approximately 4.5 million live births and 28,000 infant deaths in the United States, resulting in an infant mortality rate of 6.22/1000. If health authorities can find a way to reduce the rate by 1/1000 (16%), the United States would rise in international rank from 34th to 31st and about 4500 infants would be saved.

Limitations of study and potential confounding factors

This analysis did not adjust for vaccine composition, national vaccine coverage rates, variations in the infant mortality rates among minority races, preterm births, differences in how some nations report live births, or the potential for ecological bias. A few comments about each of these factors are included below.

Vaccine composition

This analysis calculated the total number of vaccine doses received by children but did not differentiate between the substances, or quantities of those substances, in each dose. Common vaccine substances include antigens (attenuated viruses, bacteria, toxoids), preservatives (thimerosal, benzethonium chloride, 2-phenoxyethanol, phenol), adjuvants (aluminum salts), additives (ammonium sulfate, glycerin, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium chloride), stabilizers (fetal bovine serum, monosodium glutamate, human serum albumin, porcine gelatin), antibiotics (neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B), and inactivating chemicals (formalin, glutaraldehyde, polyoxyethylene). For the purposes of this study, all vaccine doses were equally weighted.

Vaccine coverage rates

No adjustment was made for national vaccine coverage rates—a percentage of the target population that received the recommended vaccines. However, most of the nations in this study had coverage rates in the 90%–99% range for the most commonly recommended vaccines—DTaP, polio, hepatitis B, and Hib (when these vaccines were included in the schedule). Therefore, this factor is unlikely to have impacted the analyses.9

Minority races

It has been argued that the US IMR is poor in comparison to many other nations because African–American infants are at greater risk of dying relative to White infants, perhaps due to genetic factors or disparities in living standards. However, in 2006 the US IMR for infants of all races was 6.69 and the IMR for White infants was 5.56.13 In 2009, this improved rate would have moved the United States up by just one rank internationally, from 34th place to 33rd place.8 In addition, the IMRs for Hispanics of Mexican descent and Asian–Americans in the United States are significantly lower than the IMR for Whites.6 Thus, diverse IMRs among different races in the Unites States exert only a modest influence over the United States’ international infant mortality rank.

Preterm births

Preterm birth rates in the United States have steadily increased since the early 1980s. (This rise has been tied to a greater reliance on caesarian deliveries, induced labor, and more births to older mothers.) Preterm babies are more likely than full-term babies to die within the first year of life. About 12.4% of US births are preterm. In Europe, the prevalence rate of premature birth ranges from 5.5% in Ireland to 11.4% in Austria. Preventing preterm births is essential to lower infant mortality rates. However, it is important to note that some nations such as Ireland and Greece, which have very low preterm birth rates (5.5% and 6%, respectively) compared to the United States, require their infants to receive a relatively high number of vaccine doses (23) and have correspondingly high IMRs. Therefore, reducing preterm birth rates is only part of the solution to reduce IMRs.6,32

Differences in reporting live births

Infant mortality rates in most countries are reported using WHO standards, which do not include any reference to the duration of pregnancy or weight of the infant, but do define a ‘live birth’ as a baby born with any signs of life for any length of time.12 However, four nations in the dataset—France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland—do not report live births entirely consistent with WHO standards. These countries add an additional requirement that live babies must also be at least 22 weeks of gestation or weigh at least 500 grams. If babies do not meet this requirement and die shortly after birth, they are reported as stillbirths. This inconsistency in reporting live births artificially lowers the IMRs of these nations.32,33 According to the CDC, “There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.”32 Nevertheless, when the IMRs of France, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland were adjusted for known underreporting of live births and the 30 data pairs retested for significance, the correlation coefficient improved from 0.70 to 0.74 (95% CI, 0.52–0.87).

Ecological bias

Ecological bias occurs when relationships among individuals are inferred from similar relationships observed among groups (or nations). Although most of the nations in this study had 90%–99% of their infants fully vaccinated, without additional data we do not know whether it is the vaccinated or unvaccinated infants who are dying in infancy at higher rates. However, respiratory disturbances have been documented in close proximity to infant vaccinations, and lethal changes in the brainstem of a recently vaccinated baby have been observed. Since some infants may be more susceptible to SIDS shortly after being vaccinated, and babies vaccinated against diarrhea died from pneumonia at a statistically higher rate than non-vaccinated babies, there is plausible biologic and causal evidence that the observed correlation between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants should not be dismissed as ecological bias.


The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better IMRs. Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. When nations were grouped into five different vaccine dose ranges (12–14, 15–17, 18–20, 21–23, and 24–26), 98.3% of the total variance in IMR was explained by the unweighted linear regression model. These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates.

Efforts to reduce the relatively high US IMR have been elusive. Finding ways to lower preterm birth rates should be a high priority. However, preventing premature births is just a partial solution to reduce infant deaths. A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential. All nations—rich and poor, advanced and developing—have an obligation to determine whether their immunization schedules are achieving their desired goals.


The authors wish to thank Gerard Jungman, PhD, Paul G. King, PhD, and Peter Calhoun for their assistance in reviewing the manuscript and sharing their expertise.


This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.


1. Wegman ME. Infant mortality in the 20th century, dramatic but uneven progressJ Nutr 2001; 131: 401S–408S [PubMed]
2. Beck MA. The role of nutrition in viral diseaseJ Nutri Biochem 1996; 7: 683–690 
3. Scrimshaw NS, SanGiovanni JP. Synergism of nutrition, infection, and immunity: an overviewAm J Clin Nutr 1997; 66: 464S–477S [PubMed]
4. Anderson GF, Hussay PS, Frogner BK, Waters HR. Health spending in the United States and the rest of the industrialized worldHealth Affairs 2005; 24: 903–914  [PubMed]
5. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Recent trends in infant mortality in the United States. NCHS Data Brief (CDC), no 9. Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2008.  [PubMed]
6. Kent MM. Premature births help to explain higher infant mortality ratePopulation Reference (accessed December 2009). 
7. Xu Jiaquan, Kochaneck KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: preliminary data for 2007Natl Vital Stat Rep2009; 58: 6 
8. CIA Country comparison: infant mortality rate (2009)The World (accessed 13 April 2010).
9. WHO/UNICEF Immunization Summary: A Statistical Reference Containing Data Through 2008 (The 2010 Edition).
10. Up-to-date European vaccination schedules may be found (accessed 13 April 2010).
11. WHO International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1979. 
12. WHO International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1992. 
13. CDC Table 31. Number of infant deaths and infant mortality rates for 130 selected causes, by race: United States, 2006Natl Vital Stat Rep 2009; 57: 110–112 
14. Iannelli V. Immunization timelineKeep Kids Healthy. (accessed 21 April 2010)
15. Bergman AB. The “Discovery” of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. New York, NY, USA: Praeger Publishers, 1986. 
16. MacDorman MF, Rosenberg HM. Trends in infant mortality by cause of death and other characteristics, 1960-88 (vital and health statistics)Volume 20 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Government Printing, 1993. 
17. National Center for Health Statistics Vital Statistics of the United States 1988, Volume II, Mortality, Part A. Washington, DC, USA: Public Health Service, 1991. 
18. Malloy MH, MacDorman M. Changes in the classification of sudden unexpected infant deaths: United States, 1992-2001Pediatrics 2005; 115: 1247–1253 [PubMed]
19. Mitchell E, Krous HF, Donald T, Byard RW. Changing trends in the diagnosis of sudden infant death.Am J Forensic Med Pathol 2000; 21: 311–314  [PubMed]
20. Overpeck MD, Brenner RA, Cosgrove C, Trumble AC, Kochanek K, MacDorman M. National under ascertainment of sudden unexpected infant deaths associated with deaths of unknown causePediatrics2002; 109: 274–283 [PubMed]
21. Byard RW, Beal SM. Has changing diagnostic preference been responsible for the recent fall in incidence of sudden infant death syndrome in South Australia? J Pediatr Child Health 1995; 31: 197–199[PubMed]
22. Vennemann MM, Butterfass-Bahloul T, Jorch G, Brinkmann B, Findeisen M, Sauerland C, et al. Sudden infant death syndrome: no increased risk after immunisationVaccine 2007; 25: 336–340 [PubMed]
23. Stratton K, Almario DA, Wizemann TM, McCormick MC. Immunization safety review: vaccinations and sudden unexpected death in infancy. Washington DC, USA: National Academies Press, 2003. 
24. Silvers LE, Ellenberg SS, Wise RP, Varricchio FE, Mootrey GT, Salive ME. The epidemiology of fatalities reported to the vaccine adverse event reporting system 1990-1997Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf2001; 10: 279–285  [PubMed]
25. Torch WC. Diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) immunization: a potential cause of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). American Academy of Neurology, 34th Annual Meeting, Apr 25-May 1, 1982Neurology 32(4): pt. 2 
26. Walker AM, Jick H, Perera DR, Thompson RS, Knauss TA. Diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis immunization and sudden infant death syndromeAm J Public Health 1987; 77: 945–951  [PMC free article]  [PubMed]
27. Fine PE, Chen RT. Confounding in studies of adverse reactions to vaccinesAm J Epidemiol 1992; 136: 121–135 [PubMed]
28. Ottaviani G, Lavezze AM, Matturri L. Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) shortly after hexavalent vaccination: another pathology in suspected SIDS? Virchows Archiv 2006; 448: 100–104 [PubMed]
29. CDC About the sudden unexpected infant death investigation (SUIDI) reporting formDepartment of Health and Human Services (accessed 20 May 2010). 
30. GlaxoSmithKline Rotarix® (Rotavirus Vaccine, Live, Oral) Oral Suspension. Product insert from the manufacturer (April 2008): 6. 
31. FDA Center for biologics evaluation and research, vaccines and related biological products advisory committee meeting (20 February 2008): 127–128 
32. MacDorman MF, Mathews TJ. Behind international rankings of infant mortality: how the United States compares with Europe. NCHS data brief, no 23 Hyattsville, MD, USA: National Center for Health Statistics, 2009.  [PubMed]
33. Euro-Peristat Project, with SCPE, Eurocat, Euroneostat European Perinatal Health Report: Data for 2004 (The 2008 Edition): Table 3.1:40

January 22, 2012

ANOTHER Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

Editorial Note:
When you finish reading all of this, REMEMBER DR. OFFIT, who wants to give your child / baby 100,000 vaccines so HE can line his greedy pockets!

This is NOT going to be pleasant BUT, SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO SAY IT! This is just another day in the world of vaccines. I almost didn’t post this because, even I’m so used to, CONDITIONED to these deals with vaccines that I’ve become desensitized. This happens EVERY DAY with vaccines. The ONLY reason the word gets out ‘on occasion’ is because these particular parents DID NOT BUY INTO THE DAMAGE CONTROL BULL the medical industrial complex ISSUES every time THEY kill kids with their deadly vaccines. This may not be a NICE thing to say but, it has to be said. Many times these kids / babies get shot up and die right in front of their parents and even after this, these parents buy into the bull the death could NEVER be from the vaccines!

This same deal concerning vaccines is particularly a problem when CPS (Child Protective Services) snatches children WHO HAVE NEVER HAD POISONOUS VACCINES INJECTED INTO THEIR VEINS. Most of the time these are NOT even babies these are HEALTHY (STRONG EMPHASIS ADD!!) children who get multiple vaccines and either die or become extremely AND PERMANENTLY ILL RIGHT AFTER ‘THE STATE’ HAD SNATCHED THEM.

YOU have the POWER as a parent to end this madness BEFORE IT STARTS. Tell these rabid psycho vaccine pushing doctors NO when they want to shoot up your kid.

Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

Christina England
Vac Truth
January 20, 2012

The end of last year was masked with sadness for Belgium parents Raphaël Sirjacobs & Béatrice Dupont, as their nine week old daughter Stacy Sirjacobs lost her fight for life. Stacy died just one week after her first vaccinations and left her twin sister Lesly behind. Devastated by their loss their parents are convinced that vaccines and hospital failures were the cause of their beautiful daughters death.
Stacy and Lesly were born one month premature by Caesarean section and spent the next four days in an incubator. Stacy needed resuscitation at birth.

Following medical advice parents Sirjacobs and Dupont decided to have the twins vaccinated. Stacy was slightly unwell with a cold on the day of her vaccinations but doctors assured her parents that it was safe to give her the vaccinations.

(It is worth noting that there is a history of Sudden Infant Death and allergies in the family. The twins were being prescribed a milk supplement due to a milk allergy at the time Stacy became ill)
The twins received Prevenar, a vaccine against meningitis and pneumonia, Infanrix Hexa, a six in one vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus type B, and finally the Rotarix, a preventive vaccine for gastroenteritis.

This means that these tiny vulnerable babies received a staggering nine vaccines in one day, vaccines that may have caused one of them to die.

A week after her vaccinations Stacy became unwell with a fever of 39.9 degrees C. Her parents decided to administer Perdolan to lower her fever. As their daughter was still very poorly they called the hospital who advised them to bring their daughter in.

The medical staff diagnosed Stacy with a slight chest infection and infection in her blood and told her parents not to worry as this was “not serious”. Stacy was then given medication and put on a drip feed and kept in for observation.

Stacy’s father informed me that all links to the vaccines were strongly denied. Despite Stacy having a heartbeat of 200 to 230 beats per minute the pediatrician told her parents that she was fine and that she was probably suffering from gastroenteritis (an illness that this little girl had been vaccinated against!).

The worried couple decided not to leave their daughter and remained by her bedside. During the evening they informed the nurse that their daughter had diarrhea but to their astonishment, they were told that the baby had been changed and they were to let her get some sleep and change her when she woke up.

During the night, Stacy continued to suffer ‘abnormal diarrhea’, and despite frantic pleas from her parents the nurse refused to do anything, even though by this time Stacy was restless and in obvious distress. Stacy’s father says that they reported to nursing staff that Stacy was covered in small red spots and had difficulty breathing.

According to Stacy’s father, Stacy’s medical records states that at 19.45 a doctor telephoned his brother to ask his permission to do a lumbar puncture and put Stacy on the antibiotic Ampire, while they were awaiting the results. Authorization was denied …
Stacy died a short time later.

Stacy’s father says: (translated from French by Google translate)
“The nurse 23h phone to the pediatrician to inform him that the little Stacy is worse, this one happens to 11:45 p.m. ET begins to make attempts at resuscitation. He informed at the time the parents that the baby is not breathing on their own, and asks them to leave the room. Would follow three hours, during which everything is sought to revive the girl, who is declared dead at 3am. But in fact, the heart stopped beating Stacy at midnight.

The pediatrician then began to explain to parents that the little one died of sepsis and meningitis, while in order to make such a diagnosis, it would have had to do a lumbar puncture which was not performed, or that would have required at least one blood culture or stool, the results will not be known until 3 or 4 days”.

Stacy’s death was recorded as: ‘Meningitis’.
It is interesting and extremely sad that this little girl died of an illness that she was vaccinated against just one week before she died. It is obvious from the information that I have from the father that this tiny vulnerable baby was left to suffer in considerable pain, dirty and in distress, whilst the pleas of her parents were ignored.

Vaccinations are administered to a child based on the age of the child from the day that they are born. Due to the advances in medicine, babies are being saved at an earlier and earlier stage in their development. We know that Stacy was born at approx one month premature, which means that she was given her eight week old vaccinations at just a month old; she was also unwell at the time she was vaccinated. It is my opinion that her small immature immune system could not cope with the onslaught of deadly toxins and chemicals that are in our vaccines today.

Stacy’s devastated parents are so outraged by what they have discovered since their baby’s death, that they are now asking the world to join them in a worldwide protest. They want the world to hold a global event in memory of Stacy and the many hundreds of children that have been killed or injured by vaccinations worldwide. They feel that vaccine deaths are being covered up and ask the citizens of the world to stand united for one day against vaccine damage.

They say:
We are the parents of Stacy, who died a week after HER first vaccines; we are organizing a global event in honor of Stacy, Nova and all other vaccine victims worldwide. We are summoning every citizen of every country to take to the streets in their own cities, towns and villages: things must now change!
Remember to invite local journalists, the media and any victims or parents of victims prepared to tell their story. Make placards, banners and signs: UNCENSORED VACCINE INFORMATION, FREEDOM OF CHOICE!
The event is to be held on the January 20th 2012. If it is not possible for you to attend one of the many protests that are being held, then perhaps you could go along to your local church and light a candle to register your protest at what is happening around the world.

Sirjacobs and Dupont are right; something radical does need to be done to make the authorities listen to parents

Vaccine deaths are being reported around the world at an alarming rate. In May 2010 The Times of India (2) reported that 128 deaths had occurred during the previous year and the figure appeared to be rising with each year. Their report suggested that the Indian government was covering up vaccine deaths. Arun Ram reporting for the Times wrote:

“The government tries to pass on every death as unrelated to vaccine. It sometimes merely does a culture of the vaccine in question. Just because a vaccine is not found to be contaminated, it doesn’t mean the vaccine has not caused the death,” says Dr Puliyel.

In March 2011 Neil Z miller (3) wrote that in the USA more than 2,000 babies died after receiving pneumococcal and Hib vaccines and yet nothing whatsoever was done. He reported that whilst these vaccines were suspended in Japan after just four deaths, the news of over 2000 deaths in the USA was barely even reported. According to Miller Paul Offit had called the Japanese authorities foolish, saying that the babies probably died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). In fact he passed their deaths off as anything he could, except the vaccines that is. Miller wrote:

According to Paul Offit, media spokesperson for the vaccine industry, “the Japanese Ministry of Health was foolish to suspend the Hib and pneumococcal programs.” Offit thinks the deaths were probably caused by SIDS, or underlying conditions, or another cause – anything except the vaccines. Often, children get sick and die by chance.

Actually, Paul Offit could be right, many of the vaccinated babies could be dying as a result of SIDS because in May 2011 an interesting article hit the internet by storm stating that a study published in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology found that the countries that administered the highest number of vaccines during the first year of life experienced higher infant mortality rates. (4)
This is not new because studies have been stating that vaccines were causing children to die for many years.

The Pourcyrous study (5) was the first study to examine the impact of multi-vaccinations on the immature brain. It is clear from the results of this study that the more vaccines a child has, the larger impact the vaccines have on the child’s brain. Massroor Pourcyrous, MD, Sheldon B. Korones, MD, Kristopher L. Arheart PhD, Henrietta S. Bada, MD studied 239 preterm infants who were given either a single vaccine or multiple vaccines, their results are as follows:

Abnormal elevation of CRP level occurred in 85% of infants administered multiple vaccines and up to 70% of those given a single vaccine. Overall, 16% of infants had vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours postimmunization. In logistic regression analysis, abnormal CRP values were associated with multiple vaccines (OR, 15.77; 95% CI 5.10-48.77) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (OR, 2.28; 95% CI 1.02-5.13). Cardiorespiratory events were associated marginally with receipt of multiple injections (OR, 3.62; 95% CI 0.99-13.25) and significantly with gastroesophageal reflux (GER) (OR, 4.76; 95% CI 1.22-18.52).

This study has had so much impact that it has now being quoted in papers and books on adverse reactions to vaccines and SIDS worldwide.

As today saw the news that yet another vaccine is to be added to babies vaccine schedule, the Meningitis B vaccine (6), we to ask ourselves how many Stacy’s will it take before action is taken?
This article has been written in memory of Stacy Sirjacobs and the many hundreds of babies who have lost their life after receiving what the governments tell us are ‘safe vaccines’.

Create a free website or blog at