Unvaccinated children tend to be healthy. Why is that? A microbiologist, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., weighs in. Photo of a smiling girl in a maroon shirt. Photo: Felicia Leggio Braud
Why Are Unvaccinated Children Healthier Than Vaccinated Children?
By Brian Hooker, Ph.D.
Special to www.JenniferMargulis.net
Several recent scientific papers have shown that children who haven’t been vaccinated are healthier than vaccinated children.
How’s that even possible?
A microbiologist, I’ve published over 65 science and engineering papers in internationally recognized, peer-reviewed journals. I began studying health and safety issues over 20 years ago. My interest in vaccine safety started after my own son’s health started to decline.
My wife and I noticed that every time we took our son to the doctor he became sicker.
But we didn’t know why.
Unvaccinated children healthier than vaccinated counterparts, why?
Independent researcher, Neil Z. Miller, authored Miller’s Critical Review of Vaccine Studies: 400 Important Scientific Papers Summarized for Parents and Researchers.
Neil Z. Miller and I investigated the question of if and why unvaccinated children are healthier.
The Journal of Translational Science published our paper, “Health effects in vaccinated versus unvaccinated children, with covariates for breastfeeding status and type of birth,” on June 12, 2021.
N = 1,565
Our study is based on a cohort of 1,565 children. They’re from 3 medical practices in the United States. Parents in these practices completed questionnaires about their children’s health and vaccination status. We confirmed their answers using chart records from each practice.
The data revealed that fully and partially vaccinated children had higher incidents of:
- Asthma
- Attention deficit disorders
- Autism
- Gastrointestinal disorders
- Recurring ear infections
- Severe allergies
Compared to children who were completely unvaccinated, the vaccinated children were sicker.
In addition, we uncovered that the best health outcomes were in unvaccinated children whose mothers breastfed them for a minimum of 6 months, as well as in unvaccinated children born vaginally.
{On the health benefits of breastfeeding: “Mommy, I Want Nummies: The Benefits of Nursing Past Three.”}
Unvaccinated children have more incidents of chickenpox
At the same time, unvaccinated children showed a greater incidence of chickenpox as compared to partially and fully vaccinated children.
In fact, unvaccinated children were ten times more likely to get chickenpox.
Significantly, none of the children suffered ill effects from chickenpox.
Our research adds to a growing body of literature that demonstrates that unvaccinated children enjoy better health outcomes than vaccinated children.
These peer-reviewed studies include:
- Lyons-Weiler and Thomas (2021) — These researchers, a biochemist and a medical doctor, found vaccinated children were more likely to be diagnosed with neurodevelopmental and other chronic disorders compared to unvaccinated children.
- Hooker and Miller (2020) — Medical records confirmed higher levels of developmental delays, asthma, ear infections, and gastrointestinal disorders in vaccinated children.
- Mawson et al. (2017) — Epidemiologist Anthony Mawson surveyed parents of homeschooled children. He found that vaccinated children were more likely to have pneumonia, ear infections, allergies, and neurodevelopmental disorders.
Certainly, unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated children.
But why?
Might it be that we are over-vaccinating children?
Is there a protective effect of catching infectious diseases as Maya Shetreat-Klein, M.D.’s The Dirt Cure, suggests?
Or is it that the ingredients in vaccines have a negative effect?
What’s going on?
No one really knows.
But finding the answers to these questions is urgent.
The Vaccine Safety Datalink
The CDC possesses a large database of information.
This Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) contains medical records of over 9 million patients.
Moreover, this includes over 2 million children, from 9 participating health maintenance organizations.
However, the government has blocked independent researchers from using the VSD. Indeed, the CDC keeps it closed to us. Even though over $30 million of taxpayer money go to maintain it each year.
The CDC must open the Vaccine Safety Datalink to independent researchers.
We need this data in order to understand the health effects of the current infant and childhood vaccines.
About the author
Brian S. Hooker, Ph.D., P.E., is Professor of Biology at Simpson University. Based in Redding California, he specializes in microbiology and biotechnology. In additions, he is Chief Scientific Officer for Children’s Health Defense. Hooker earned his Bachelor of Science degree in chemical engineering, from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, in 1985, his Master’s of Science in 1988, and his doctorate in 1990. Both Dr. Hooker’s advanced degrees are in biochemical engineering from Washington State University.
Related articles:
Vaccinated Children Sicker, Study Shows
Unvaccinated = Healthier
Health Outcomes in Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Kids
pharma has a longstanding and well publicized practice of incentivizing physicians to prescribe specific drugs rewarding them with free meals, high end vacations, financial bonuses etc. I recall learning that pediatricians received bonuses when a % of their practice followed CDC schedule in full but it’s been so long since I did this research I couldn’t recall off hand if these are all pediatricians or only those in private practice and if it’s the pharma companies, CDC or HMOs that pay out these bonuses. do you have references/sources for this? thanks!
I noticed that the first article link reference was recently retracted. I tried to learn the exact criticism as to why the “strength” of the data was – post publication – considered inadequate for the suggested conclusions but that information is not available. The other corrections that were previously made to the article do not appear relevant to the retraction, conclusions nor breadth of data strength.
Retraction is not an actual scientific tool IF it is not transparent. However it could certainly be a tool of undue (un-scientific) influence when used in the way it appears on PubMed in this case.
In this time of Gallop Poll type “science” dominating media opining, it’s more than easy to find even peer-reviewed examples of conclusions based on far less “strength” than these authors work produced.