Health Impact News Editor Comments

Brian Hooker, Ph.D., PE, has 15 years of experience in the field of bioengineering and is an associate professor at Simpson University where he specializes in biology and chemistry. His over 50 science and engineering papers have been published in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals.

Dr. Hooker has exposed fraud in vaccine studies for years, and in 2014 a top CDC vaccine scientist turned whistleblower and chose to reveal evidence of fraud in the CDC to Dr. Hooker.

More about Dr. Brian Hooker

Health Impact News has used Dr. Hooker in the past to unravel research on vaccines, much of it sponsored by the government and your tax dollars, where the data uncovered in the research was spun to the public and corporate media to achieve a result that was not supported by the data at all.

Dr. Hooker has done this once again, by analyzing the data in a recent study by Kaiser Permanente looking at the data regarding the annual flu shot which is recommended for pregnant women, and the possible link between the flu shot and the unborn baby being diagnosed with autism.

Did the conclusions of the authors of the study support the actual data?

The prenatal flu vaccine and ASD: Good research, bad conclusions

by BRIAN S. HOOKER, PH.D.
Focus for Health

Very early this year, a research group from the insurance giant Kaiser Permanente published a paper  concluding no evidence of harm in administering prenatal influenza vaccines.

The study authors asserted that there was no relationship between those who received the flu shot during pregnancy and later autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnosis in the child.

However, that proclamation was not consistent with the study’s results. Specifically, women who received the vaccine during their first trimester of pregnancy showed a 20% greater risk of having the child later develop ASD.

This was based on a sampling of 13,477 women who received the maternal flu shot in the first trimester, resulting in 260 ASD cases, versus 151,698 “control” women who received no flu shot during pregnancy, resulting in 2,338 ASD cases.

This result was statistically significant with a p value of 0.01, which in this case means that the possibility that this is a “chance” finding and not a “true” association was just 1%.

In other words, the chances of this being a “true” association are 99%.

In statistics, the gold standard “cut-off” to determine statistical significance is actually a higher p value of 0.05, meaning that the possibility of a chance association is less than 5%.

Thus, the first trimester flu shot – ASD relationship should have been deemed statistically significant, with p=0.01, and accordingly a policy change should have been made to suspend use of that vaccine, at least in the first trimester of pregnancy.

However, the study authors instead reached into their statistical “bag of tricks” and trotted out what is termed the “Bonferroni” adjustment. This adjustment is applied in statistics only under very specific instances, when multiple, unrelated statistical evaluations are made using a single data sampling.

In this adjustment, simply, the p value is adjusted by multiplying its original value with the number of “independent” evaluations completed in the study of that single data set (Bland et al. 1995 BMJ 310:170).

In the case of Zerbo et al. 2017, there were 8 evaluations completed (4 evaluations regarding the flu shot and 4 evaluations regarding women who actually contracted the flu during pregnancy) and thus the original p value of 0.01 was adjusted to 0.08, above the “cut off” value used for deeming “statistical significance.”

The Zerbo et al. authors rounded the result up to p=0.1, further moving the result away from the “magic” 0.05 cut-off level, causing the significant result to disappear.

Read the full article at FocusforHealth.org.

Order Here!

Leaving a lucrative career as a nephrologist (kidney doctor), Dr. Suzanne Humphries is now free to actually help cure people.

In this autobiography she explains why good doctors are constrained within the current corrupt medical system from practicing real, ethical medicine.

One of the sane voices when it comes to examining the science behind modern-day vaccines, no pro-vaccine extremist doctors have ever dared to debate her in public.

Medical Doctors Opposed to Forced Vaccinations – Should Their Views be Silenced?

One of the biggest myths being propagated in the compliant mainstream media today is that doctors are either pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine, and that the anti-vaccine doctors are all “quacks.”

However, nothing could be further from the truth in the vaccine debate. Doctors are not unified at all on their positions regarding “the science” of vaccines, nor are they unified in the position of removing informed consent to a medical procedure like vaccines.

The two most extreme positions are those doctors who are 100% against vaccines and do not administer them at all, and those doctors that believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective for ALL people, ALL the time, by force if necessary.

Very few doctors fall into either of these two extremist positions, and yet it is the extreme pro-vaccine position that is presented by the U.S. Government and mainstream media as being the dominant position of the medical field.

In between these two extreme views, however, is where the vast majority of doctors practicing today would probably categorize their position. Many doctors who consider themselves “pro-vaccine,” for example, do not believe that every single vaccine is appropriate for every single individual.

Many doctors recommend a “delayed” vaccine schedule for some patients, and not always the recommended one-size-fits-all CDC childhood schedule. Other doctors choose to recommend vaccines based on the actual science and merit of each vaccine, recommending some, while determining that others are not worth the risk for children, such as the suspect seasonal flu shot.

These doctors who do not hold extreme positions would be opposed to government-mandated vaccinations and the removal of all parental exemptions.

In this article, I am going to summarize the many doctors today who do not take the most extremist pro-vaccine position, which is probably not held by very many doctors at all, in spite of what the pharmaceutical industry, the federal government, and the mainstream media would like the public to believe.