The Danish Study: another medical fraud!

It has been more than a week since I wrote about vaccines. This is unacceptable! 😊

So, let’s do something about this unfortunate situation! lol

I keep seeing this on my feeds (see the picture below).

A website that tries to educate and teach pro-vaxers to talk to us, anti-vaxers!

The comments were so good!

I could not stop laughing!

Interestingly, most of those comments were made by anti-vaxers. I guess they did not target the right type of people with their ad! Lol

They believe that they can change us, anti-vaxers. That is so absurd to believe this!

A survey showed that 30% of people without a high school diploma, 50% with a high school diploma and 70% with a college degree reported using alternative health care options in their treatments.

You can see that this survey indicates that we are smarter! lol

Unfortunately, most of us if not all of us were pro-vaxers before, but because we witnessed what vaccines did to our children, friends, family, patients, we started questioning, reading, studying science, and realizing that we have been lied to for decades!

They do not have the science on their sides, so they are trying to find ways to “convince” us that we are wrong.

When people think of “arguments,” often their first thought is of shouting matches riddled with personal attacks. Ironically, personal attacks run contrary to rational arguments.

In logic and rhetoric, a personal attack is called an ad hominem. Ad hominem is Latin for “against the man.” Instead of advancing good sound reasoning, an ad hominem replaces logical argumentation with attack-language unrelated to the truth of the matter.

More specifically, the ad hominem is a fallacy of relevance where someone rejects or criticizes another person’s view on the basis of personal characteristics, background, physical appearance, or other features irrelevant to the argument at issue.

We see this all the time!

Wakefield is a fraud, you are not a MD, you did not study vaccine, you are just a mom reading on the internet, etc.

I am sure that you can add more of those attacks to this short list 😊

Funny enough, they use this type of arguments regularly because they can’t argue the science, so they attack the messenger 😊

Often time, they also use the appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam).

This fallacy happens when we misuse an authority. This misuse of authority can occur in a number of ways. We can cite only authorities, steering conveniently away from other testable and concrete evidence as if expert opinion is always correct. Or we can cite irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities.

We hear that all the time as well!

The CDC says this, the WHO says that, etc.

They keep using these “authorities”, but they do not understand the science at all behind those false claims.

They believe these organizations are right because they decide what is true and what is false.

But none of the statements from them are true. They do not even look at the science!

If you read a little bit on this topic, you would quickly realize that those organizations are highly corrupted. I talked about it in the past. Money buys everything. And the CDC and WHO are bought by pharmaceutical companies.

Of course, they would support their sponsors!

Independent research clearly shows that vaccines are toxic!

The CDC likes to use the Danish studies to support their claims that vaccines do not cause autism.

The first one was published in 2003:

“Thimerosal and the Occurrence of Autism: Negative Ecological Evidence from Danish Population-Based Data”.

But this study was heavily manipulated to obtain the desired results!

Not mentioning that the author of this study is a fraud.

This is the thing that pro-vaxers do not want to confront: manipulation of data!

The study only considered 956 children with autism. Worse, a material change in how autism data is obtained happened right around the time the numbers of autism cases seemed to grow, rendering the data meaningless.

The study looked at data between 1970-2000. In 1995, the Danish registry added “Outpatient Clinics” to their count of autism cases. It turns out that Outpatient Clinics are where 93% of Danish children are diagnosed with autism, so the number of autism cases before 1995 did not include the clinics. More surprising, the authors even note this in the study: “since 1995 outpatient activities were registered as well…the proportion of outpatient to inpatient activities was about 4 to 6 times as many outpatients as inpatients…this may exaggerate the incidence rates.”

Exaggerate the incidence rates? It is the equivalent of doing a study on “Divorce Rates in North America” and counting Mexico and Canada only for the first few years, then adding in the United States, and noting that divorce rates went up. As a SafeMinds critique of the study noted, “Therefore, their purported increase after 1994 can be explained entirely by the registration of an existing autism population that did not require hospitalization.” To compound the problem, Denmark also changed the diagnostic code they used, to the more universal ICD10 code, beginning in 1993, which would have further raised the rates.

“Also, outpatient activities were included in the Danish Psychiatric Central Research Register in 1995 and because many patients with autism in former years have been treated as outpatients this may exaggerate the incidence rates, simply because a number of patients attending the child psychiatric treatment system before 1995 were recorded for the first time, and thereby counted as new cases in the incidence rates.”

The meaning of this paragraph is: we didn’t count 93% of the kids diagnosed with autism in Denmark during the time mercury was in vaccines, then we did once it was removed.

The second one:

“Measles, Mumps, Rubella Vaccination and Autism: A Nationwide Cohort Study”.

Again, this study was manipulated. You need to understand that epidemiological studies can be easily manipulated to obtain the results you want.

Based on Dr. Hooker’s analysis:

“In this cohort, the incidence of autism was 0.98%, but in reality, it should have been  2.5%.  So this cohort was biased toward non-autistic kids. In other words, approximately 4,400 autistic children are missing from this study.

In addition, 1.5% of the sample was too young to get an autism diagnosis.  This could account for as many as 3,400 additional cases not included in the analysis, which would bias the outcomes to favor not finding a relationship between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Also, two different MMR vaccines were used in this study.  The GlaxoSmithKline Prolix® formulation was used from 2000 to 2007 and Merck’s MMR®II formulation was used from 2008 to 2013.  Prolix® contains the Schwarz measles strain and MMR®II contains the Ender’s Edmonston measles strain.  Thus, children using the Merck formulation were much too young to receive an autism diagnosis as the oldest they would be at the time of study is 6 years of age or younger.  This is important for comparison to the experience in other countries, especially the U.S. where the Merck formulation was used exclusively for the entire study period.

In addition, the age at which Danish children in the sample received their second dose of MMR vaccine was dropped from 12 years to 4 years in 2008.  This means that children born after 2004 would get two MMR vaccines prior to the average age of an autism diagnosis, whereas children born prior to 2004 would have received only one MMR vaccine.”

You see, statistics are so easily manipulated to get the results that are wanted by the authors. This is not science, but fraud.

But pro-vaxers do not care about science. They just want to be right and they would do anything to be right, even committing scientific fraud.

Another example is when they say that only MDs should be allowed to talk about vaccines.

MDs has no training at all in nutrition, no training in science, no training in functional medicine, no training on vaccinations, no training in how to actually help patients to get better.


One thing that I never understood is why people perceive and believe that MDs are gods, why they are the only ones who have the authority to talk about health when they have no training in getting people better!


Actually, they should not have the authority at all to talk about health!

MDs have no training in how to read science, none!

First, they do not have the time to read science.

Second, if they do, they read the abstracts, and that’s all.

Third, they do not have the appropriate knowledge, skills to evaluate the validity of the papers they read. That is not their fault, they are not trained to read science.

As opposed to PhDs, we are trained to critically read science.

When I read a research article, it usually takes me at least 1-2 hrs to break it down. I look at the flow of the paper, the consistency of the figures, the data. I look at the statistics, the methodology used, errors that they may have, etc.

It takes some time to carefully read and analyze a paper.

This has to be done knowing than more than 90% of the paper published are wrong.

Not having the skills to differentiate a good or bad paper has led us into this mess, confusion, believing that fats are bad or vaccinations save lives.

The Research Intelligence Group shows in new studies by Survey Sampling International that globally, 66% of patients feel disrespected by their medical doctors. They say their MDs do not answer questions or involve them in their own treatment decisions and speak down to them.

I hear this all the time. Very unfortunate!

The bandwagon fallacy assumes something is true (or right, or good) because other people agree with it. It could be something that is accepted because it’s popular. The consensus gentium (Lat., “consensus of the people”) is when something is accepted because the relevant authorities or people all agree on it.

A good example of this is: we know that vaccines are good because they saved lots of lives. People agree on this, but they do not even look at the science. If they did, they would see that this argument is completely false!

Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

I had a good example of this a few weeks ago.

I wrote 2 posts on how and why aluminum causes autism and other neurological disorders.

A pro-vaxer asked me if I was willing to debate with an “expert” in the field of aluminum who is himself a pro-vaxer. She said that if I am right about this, I should not have any problem to debate. In other words, she implied that if I do not debate with him, I am wrong about the science.

I do not do with this kind of argument, this is so absurd.

But what she did not realize is that there is nothing to debate, science is science. It is not politics!

There is no doubt what science says about aluminum: it is a neurotoxin, period.

What do they want to debate about? To convince me, us that aluminum is safe when science says the contrary?

No need for a debate!

When you can identify those fallacious arguments, it is easy to counter-argue and win the battle 😊

God bless y’all 😊

Dr. Serge


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *