Vaccines and Death: A Quantitative Analysis of Infant Mortality

Jones (2014), Vaccines and Death
Vaccines and Death: a quantitative

analysis of infant mortality
Summary
Neil Miller and Gary Goldman claim to have found a positive and statistically significant
relationship between the number of vaccine doses that a given national government
advocates for its infants (children under 12 months of age), and rates of infant mortality
(IMR) in that nation.1 Though their evidence appears compelling, due to selection bias
and poor statistical techniques, their claims cannot be substantiated. In fact, a proper
review of annual data from nearly all nations for the years 2009 and 2010 shows that
administered vaccine doses have no efficacy on IMR. Conversely regression tests show
that per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is negatively correlated with national IMR
at a statistically significant level.
Keywords
infant mortality rates, vaccines, regression, ANOVA, per capita GDP
Author contact information
John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD
biko97jcj@hotmail.com
Short Bio:
Jones earned a JD, and a PhD in political science from the University of Iowa. While studying
there his concentrations included statistical analysis and rhetoric, two areas of knowledge critical
to understand how to read and deconstruct peer-reviewed studies and or government propaganda
on vaccines. Always interested in natural health, nutrition, and exercise, Jones began studying
vaccines after the birth of his son in 1997 and more intently since 2003. His daughter, born in
2006, is vaccine-free. Whether teaching law, political science, or criminology he always
encourages students to recognize links between policy, law, and corporate interests. Presently
Jones lives in Durango, Mexico.
1
I. Introduction: Clarifications and Questions
In their 2011 study on vaccines and IMR, Miller and Goldman 1 start with what seems like
reasonable grounds for a question: why, according to data from the U.S. Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), did the United States have the 34th lowest infant mortality rate (IMR) in the
world in the year 2009? Put another way, the authors ask, how is it that 33 nations each have an
IMR lower than the U.S.? Given the research of Miller 2 on the ill-health effects and pathogenic
nature of vaccines, the team elect to investigate IMR in relation to only one variable, the number
of vaccine doses that the U.S., and those other 33 nations, with lower IMRs, require.1
Before I examine the particulars of the argument and methodology of Miller and
Goldman,,I think it important to parse the term require as they employ it.1 The claim that any
national or sub-national government requires any infant to receive a vaccine is problematic or just
wrong. But for Australia, where legislation allows the government to tax unvaccinated persons or
their parents,3 no other government requires that children receive vaccines or that parents allow
their children to be vaccinated under the threat of fines, imprisonment, or removal of the children
from the home.4 So, in a legal sense, there is no requirement.
In this paper, where Miller and Goldman1 would invoke terms like require(d), I use
recommend(ed) and contrast that with administer(ed). I hold that many national governments and
or their public health departments offer or publish lists of recommended vaccines and advise such
to be administered in various doses and specific times, but such lists (as recommendations) are
distinct from the numbers of vaccines and doses that are actually administered to infants and
others.
2
With these terms put in context, I address their choice and use of the data. Even though
we have evidence to the contrary (see more below), Miller and Goldman start with the premise
that data from the CIA World Factbook5 are generally reliable. Some demographic data generally
and IMR numbers specifically offered in the CIA data are sheer inanities or wildly inaccurate.
One famous example was reported in June 2009. Then, America National Public Radio (NPR),
relying on information obtained from the World Factbook, stated that the number of Israeli Jews
living in settlements in the West Bank and Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem was 250,000. But
according to the United States Department of State and the Israeli government at the time, they
estimated the number to be about 500,000. Chuck Holmes, foreign editor for NPR Digital, said,
Im surprised and displeased, and it makes me wonder what other information is out-of-date or
incorrect in the CIA World Factbook.6
Nevertheless, Miller and Goldman build a data set with which to examine only 30 nations
whereby they compare national IMRs and vaccine schedules. 1 From this set of 30, Miller and
Goldman offer four conclusions about the numbers they calculated:
1. there is a strong, statistically significant, positive correlation (Pearsons r = 0.7) between

the number of recommended vaccine doses and IMR;
2. grouping these particular 30 nations, according to the number of infant vaccines doses that
their governments suggest, into five categories, a regression calculation displays a
positive and statistically significant relationship between the number of recommended
vaccine doses and IMR;
3. the independent variable for their regression model, recommended infant vaccine doses,
explains more than 98% of the variance in the dependent variable, IMR; and
4. there is a statistically significant difference in the IMRs of those nations which

recommend the fewest vaccine doses (12-14) to infants as compared to those two groups
of nations which profess a desire to administer the greatest number of doses (21-23 and
24-26).1
3
Ultimately the authors conclude:
These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require [sic]

more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates. 1
Despite their best intentions, due to flaws in their methodology, I must challenge these
observations and conclusions as improper. For the remainder of this paper I will layout the case
showing that the grand pronouncement that vaccines increase IMR is not supported by the
evidence. After that review, I reassess the research question of Miller and Goldman 1 with a valid
data set and report findings on the relationships between national IMR data and three independent
variables: (a) national vaccine infant schedules; (b) national estimates of the average number of
vaccine doses administered per infant; and (c) GDP per capita. Ultimately through proper use of
regression and ANOVA (which also requires data that is normally distributed, or near normally
distributed),7 we can see the degree to which and the ways that vaccine administration and per
capita income might influence national IMR.
II. Deconstructing Miller and Goldman1
A. Their Research Question, Assumptions, and Data
Miller and Goldman find that American parents are encouraged to give their infants 26
vaccine doses in the childs first 365 days of life.1 According to the UN, only five nations
recommend more doses than the United States: Gambia (27), Panama (28), the Marshall Islands
(28), Brazil (29), and Palau (29).8
If infant vaccination were a key to lower infant mortality, we might expect those countries
which administer the most doses to have some of the lowest IMRs. But a superficial review
4
gives us reason to doubt the premise. Whereas Panama and Palau have IMRs around 12, Brazil is
nearly 22, the Marshall Islands over 24, and Gambia suffers an IMR of over 67.8
As well, we must appreciate that for the year 2009, according to the CIA, 33 nations, all
of which suggest fewer vaccines doses for their infants than does the CDC for Americans,
reported lower IMRs than seen in the United States.1 The observation that swaths of infants,
receiving fewer vaccine doses, might have lower rates of mortality, drew a comment from CDC
researchers MacDorman and Mathews.9 They wrote:
The relative position of the United States in comparison to countries with the lowest
infant mortality rates appears to be worsening. 9
Taking this, and other, information into account, Miller and Goldman find that Nations
[with different IMRs also] differ in their immunization requirements [sic] for infants aged less
than 1 year.1 Thus combining the CIA data, and the speculation of the CDC, Miller and
Goldman start their analysis by looking at vaccine schedules of the United Stats and the
schedules of other nations with IMRs that, according to the CIA, were lower than the United
States in the year 2009.1
Miller and Goldman justify their choice in using the CIA data by claiming: the US
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) keeps accurate, up-to-date infant mortality statistics
throughout the world .1 Such a declaration is curious when even a cursory review of the CIA
data shows that it is neither up-to-date nor accurate (see more discussion below). Nevertheless,
using data from the CIA World Factbook,5 Miller and Goldman present a list of the 34 nations
with the lowest IMRs in the world.1 I represent their list of nations, with IMR from lowest to
highest, in Table 1 (below).
5
Given their ideas and hypothesis, the next logical next step for Miller and Goldman
should have been to consider the statistical relationships between vaccine administration figures
(rather than mere vaccine schedules) in these 34 nations and weight the numbers accordingly.
Instead, they proceeded to pare down the data set.
Table 1. Nations with the lowest IMRs for the year 2009
(IMR numbers in parentheses)
Singapore (2.31) Andorra (3.79) Denmark (4.34) New Zealand (4.92)
Sweden (2.75) Czech Rep. (3.79) Austria (4.42) Monaco (5.00)
Japan (2.79) Germany (3.99) Belgium (4.44) Canada (5.04)
Iceland (3.23) Switzerland (4.18) Luxembourg (4.56) Ireland (5.05)
France (3.33) Spain (4.21) Netherlands (4.73) Greece (5.16)
Finland (3.47) Israel (4.22) Australia (4.75) Italy (5.51)
Norway (3.58) Liechtenstein (4.25) Portugal (4.78) San Marino (5.53)
Malta (3.75) Slovenia (4.25) United Kingdom (4.85) Cuba (5.82)
South Korea (4.26) United States (6.22)
Source: CIA. World Factbook
What did Miller and Goldman assume?
Miller and Goldman elected to remove four nations from their data. 1 The excluded
countries were (in alphabetical order): Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino. The
authors claim, without citation to any statistical theory or pertinent findings, that Andorra,
Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino were rightly removed, for statistical purposes because
these nations had too few infant deaths.1 According to Miller and Goldman, this elimination had
to be done for each [of these four nations] had fewer than five infant deaths in the year 2009,
and that fact would reduce the validity of the quantitative analysis. 1
First, as I show (below), the claim, that including these four in the quantitative analysis
would reduce the validity of inferential statistics, is not true. Further I believe that the decision of
6
Miller and Goldman to exclude these four was linked to their methodological error in which they
failed to weight the national data, 1 and then assumed that these four nations, would somehow
skew their results.
Instead of weighting the scores and then comparing each particular nation to the absolute
IMR of the sum of these 34 (or 30) nations, Miller and Goldman go to great lengths to justify the
exclusion of certain low IMR countries in their sample. They argue that nations with fewer than
five annual infant deaths give us statistics that produce extremely wide confidence intervals and
IMR instability [sic].1
Though Miller and Goldman did not define their terms, I understand that they mean IMR
instability is a wide confidence interval one that crosses zero. Still if Miller and Goldman mean
to argue that for their study, relatively narrow confidence intervals create more stable point
estimates10 of IMR for given nations, in a given year, then their decision to exclude Andorra,
Monaco, Liechtenstein, and San Marino was wrong: (i) by the logic of the goal of their study; and
(ii) given the meaning and purpose of generating a confidence interval.
Miller and Goldman sought to evaluate the effects of infant vaccines, by making
comparisons of national IMR data.1 To that end, they would have benefitted from acquiring as
many reliable data points as possible, from as many countries as possible, for three figures: (i)
annual live births; (ii) annual infant deaths; and (iii) annual infant vaccine administration. In no
manner can reliable data (from any particular nation) defeat the reliability of the grand findings of
such a project.
And what about the confidence intervals? The primary utility of confidence interval,
improperly posited by Miller and Goldman as a reason to exclude Andorra, Monaco,
7
Liechtenstein, and San Marino, is simply a device to compare a sample estimate to the true
population parameter. But at the individual case level, Miller and Goldman have no basis to
compare the IMR of a given country for a given year (as established by governmental data), with
the true, or expected, IMR number for that nation. But even if we were skeptical about the
accuracy of any national IMR data, we must appreciate that the smaller the number of events
(e.g., live births), the easier it is to have accurate, and verifiable records on the number of annual
infant deaths.
Moreover the goal of Miller and Goldman was not to refine national IMR estimates.
Instead Miller and Goldman only regressed some data (recommended vaccine doses) on IMR
with the intent to measure their effect. 1 (I regress two variables: (i) average number of vaccine
doses per infant in a given nation; and (ii) and GDP per capita).
The end result of regression, in an econometric sense, is to speak of the mean of the entire
data set and then project what might happen in other instances, i.e., for those cases not in the data
set. The purpose of regression analysis is not to find any particular confidence interval, for an
individual score. Rather because we are using regression to estimate average effect of vaccines
on national IMR, what is most important is the degree of normality of the data set in its entirety.
We do not need to calculate confidence intervals for any single data point. (See more discussion
on regression assumptions below).
And though there was no need to construct confidence intervals for the national IMR
numbers (which must always be greater than zero, and have an interval that is greater than zero)
for individual nations, when considering their research question, which examines IMR on the
national level, Miller and Goldman should have applied weighted proportions, rather than take
8
simple averages of national IMR numbers (presented as numbers greater than one) to construct
five distinct groups of countries (listed from lowest to highest in terms of the average numbers of
vaccines administered to infants). By using unweighted data, Miller and Goldman wrongly, and
needlessly, constructed skewed numbers.
Consider this example, as a means to understand how their calculations generated errors.
If I take a sample of published IMR data from 24 American cities, taken from the years 1995-
1998, using the Miller and Goldman approach, I can determine that the national IMR was 15.83. 11
Yet I can use another sample, from 24 other cities, over this same time period, and estimate that
the national IMR was 4.55.11 Such a wide variety of numbers can be calculated, even though, for
the years 1995-1998 respectively, aggregate IMR numbers in the United States were 7.6, 7.3, 7.2,
and 7.2 deaths per 1,000 live births. How is it possible to find such wide disparities and generate
estimates that are not close to the national numbers, especially when, presumably, infants in these
cities had the same numbers of vaccines? The answer is sampling bias and measurement error.
Though samples can help us find the true population parameter, if we do not weight samples,
when necessary, and or if we are not taking random, repeated samples from the population (and
Miller and Goldman did not), our estimates will be biased.
Regardless of how poor the method of sample estimation, one can easily generate a
confidence interval for the estimate of IMR of any nation and instead of excluding the
estimators outright, we might allow the reader to decide if said confidence intervals are excessive
or not. As presented in Charts I and II (below), I offer at least two ways to estimate a confidence
interval for a proportion like IMR.12, 13 (Given my findings, it appears that Miller and Goldman
even used the wrong method to construct confidence intervals for measures of national IMR).
9
For those countries excluded by Miller and Goldman, 1 it is not the few deaths that created
what they call a wide confidence interval, rather it is the low number of births. Applying a
technique that assumes a standard normal distribution about the estimate, 12 we can see in Chart I
(below), that as the number of births (N) increases, one factor of the Standard Error of Estimate
(SEE) moves closer to zero, and thus shrinks the size of the SEE itself.
Chart I. Estimate of Confidence Intervals

(c.i.) for a Proportion12
c.i. = proportion of the sample +/- the standard error of estimate (SEE); where
the SEE for a proportion = (t-critical value) * (p*q/N);
and
p = the proportion of the event (e.g., infant deaths/live births) and q = (1 p).
If we use the Andorra data, from the year 2009, the relevant numbers are N = 850 14 and p
and q, taken from CIA tables, where p equals the proportion of infant deaths, is 0.00376 (which
equals 3.196 / 850). To construct a 95% confidence interval then, I select a Students t-critical
value of 1.96276 (the parameter, at the 0.05 level, two-tails, for df = 849). Thus the SEE =
0.00412. Hence the 95% confidence interval for the IMR of Andorra for the year 2009 would be
-0.00036 X 0.00788.
It should be apparent that this method is a flawed way to construct a confidence interval to
estimate the true population parameter for the IMR of any nation. By definition, IMR cannot be
negative. Given that reality, we must use a Poisson distribution to generate a range.
10
A better method to construct a confidence interval for proportions, like IMR, when the
number is very small, relies on Ulm.13 In Chart II (below), I use the same data for N (850) and p
(0.00376), and events (annual infant deaths = 3.196), and then rely on 2 tables to calculate
appropriate lower and upper limit values. Again the result is a fairly narrow confidence interval.
Chart II. confidence intervals for a proportion using

a Poisson distribution (Ulms method)
Lower Limit using the 2 cumulative probability for = 0.025, with df = 6.39
(number of events multiplied times 2) to find the 2 critical value; 1.4.
LL = 2 critical value / (2 * N)
therefore, LL = 1.4 / (2 * 850) = 0.00082353
Upper Limit using the 2 cumulative probability for = 0.975, with df = 8.38
(double the sum of the number of events + 1) to find the 2 critical value; 18.1.
UL = 2 critical value / (2 * N)
therefore, UL = 18.1 / (2 * 850) = 0.01064706
Ulms13 method constructs a 95% confidence interval of 0.000823 X 0.01065. Based
on these returns, I assert then, with 95% confidence, that if one were to estimate the true [sic]
IMR for Andorra in the year 2009 (actual data notwithstanding), it should fall somewhere
between 0.8-10.65 deaths per 1,000 live births. But more importantly, as we will see below, such
a confidence level is irrelevant to the question of whether administered vaccine doses affect
infant mortality.
Reconsidering the CIA data
Ironically, precisely because Miller and Goldman claim that those four particular nations,
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and San Marino, each had fewer than five infant deaths in the
11
year 2009,1 the authors should have been skeptical about using CIA data without qualification. In
Table 2 (below), we see what the CIA World Factbook5 declares as the IMRs for the four
particular countries which were excluded by Miller and Goldman. 1
Table 2. IMR of the four nations excluded by Miller and Goldman

Nation 2009 IMR
Andorra 3.76 / 1.000
Liechtenstein 4.25 / 1.000
Monaco 5.00 / 1,000
San Marino 5.53 / 1,000
Source: CIA World Factbook
I ask, if in 2009, the Andorran people suffered fewer than five infant deaths, as Miller and
Goldman claim,1 was the national IMR of Andorra really 3.76? In 2009, according to the
government of Andorra, they saw 850 live births.14 With an IMR of 3.76, simple calculation
shows that the CIA declared that Andorra had an impossible number of 3.196 actual infant
deaths. See Chart III (below).
Chart III. How Many Andorran Babies Died in 2009

according to the CIA?
Let X equal the actual number of infant
deaths in Andorra for the year 2009
X / 850 = 3.76 / 1,000;
therefore, X = 3.196
The World Bank (WB) claims that the IMR for Andorra in 2009 was 3.1. Again if we
accept the live-birth number of 850, then the WB estimate too generates an impossible number:
2.635 actual deaths. If the number of actual infant deaths in Andorra for 2009 were three, then
12
the WB would declare that there were 968 live births, while the CIA total would be 798. Either
way, the IMR numbers offered by CIA and WB for Andorra for 2009, vary by 17.5-21%.
This one example shows two potential pitfalls with the Miller and Goldman study: (a)
without taking any steps to verify third-party data, Miller and Goldman might have used numbers
that are literal impossibilities; and (b) the CIA estimates might be so unreliable to make the
statistical inferences questionable.
More IMR comparisons between the CIA and the WB show that the CIA overestimates
WB figures tremendously. For the other three nations excluded by Miller and Goldman, we find
that the CIA raised WB numbers for IMR by the following percentages: Monaco 47%;
Liechtenstein 136%; and San Marino 191%. Without some additional means to verify or
triangulate their claims, I am left to conclude that the national demographic numbers offered by
the CIA might be unreliable.
Given these disparities in the estimates of IMR, we should be skeptical about the accuracy
of the demographic data reported by the CIA. And consider, these four particular nations have
relatively few annual births, yet, at the same time, have modern systems of communication, and
keep records that are fairly accessible. Why should we accept any inaccuracies from the CIA,
WB, or other data collators?
Beyond the questionable reliability of the CIA data for these four countries, what might
we conclude about CIA numbers generally? How can the agency craft reliable measures of IMR
for nations with millions of annual births like India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and China? Who
manages to keep accurate records in the slums of Brazil, South Africa, and Nigeria? Who tracks
and collates birth and infant death records on the thousands of islands in the Philippines or those
13
of the Roma people throughout Europe? How many countries have less than perfect record
keeping, or faulty data storage systems?
Another problem that we see with the CIA data is found when we compare their 2009 and
2010 numbers. Recall, the CIA declared that for the year 2009, 33 nations had IMRs lower than
that in the United States. When examining the 2010 IMR data, be they from the CIA, WB, and or
the United Nations (through the World Health Organization, WHO), arguably the United States is
ranked 46th in IMR. But such was not because relatively more babies were dying in the United
States. From 2009 to 2010, if we are to believe CIA claims, IMR in the U.S. dropped. But
apparently, 12 other nations had more tremendous reductions in IMR if such were even
possible. See Table 3.
Table 3. Countries that the CIA claims had lower IMRs than the U.S. in 2010
but were reported as having higher IMRs than the U.S. in 2009
Country name with 2010 IMR estimates in parentheses
Cyprus (3.2) Poland (5) Malaysia (5.4)
Belarus (4) Taiwan (5.26) Brunei (5.8)
Estonia (4.3) Lithuania (5.4) United Arab Emirates (6.1)
Croatia (4.7) Hungary (5.4) Serbia (6.1)
Source: CIA. World Factbook
It is a near statistical impossibility that any one of these nations much less all of them
could have had an IMR over 6.26 (the U.S. figure in 2009) one year, and then an extreme drop
the very next. Better explanations for the change are: (i) the record generating practices of the
CIA, or of these nations themselves, were flawed prior to and through 2009 perhaps due to
systematic bias; (ii) rather than just guess that the 2010 number for IMR would be slightly lower
14
than the figure listed for 2009, the CIA employees or contractors did more to reassess and update
the IMR estimates of these particular nations in 2010; or (iii) the 2010 data are fraudulent.
A review of CIA data on national IMR shows that, as a routine practice, their researchers
simply estimate IMR, just as they estimate other data like birth rates, population growth, GDP,
etc. Applying simple interpolation, the CIA presents linear trends between data points sometimes
as many as 10 years apart. For example, starting sometime prior to the year 2000, the CIA
assumed a 5-10% annual drop in IMR for Brunei. But for Iceland, a country with a very low
IMR (1.6 in 2010), the CIA assumes a mere 1% annual drop.
For other nations, we can infer that updated government reports or better sampling allows
the CIA to discover dramatic changes in IMR from one year to the next. For example, in 2008,
the CIA claimed that Botswana had an IMR of 44, but in 2009 the number was down to 12.6.
Similarly, the CIA reports that China (the country know for underreported births and cases of
infanticide)15 reduced its IMR by 20% between 2009 and 2010.
It is shocking to see that graphs of IMR numbers, relying on CIA data, for individual
nations, nearly always show a downward trend16 even when that country is suffering a civil war,
invasion and occupation, food shortage, or famine. For example, according to the CIA World
Factbook, since 2001 to 2012, national IMRs dropped steadily in Afghanistan, Iraq, Sri Lanka,
and Somalia.16
It is only because the CIA also claims that a few nations have upticks in IMR that we can
understand how the CIA keeps records and or gathers data. Namely they make periodic
observations, from samples on the ground, or numbers from a particular government, coupled
15
with declarations that IMR lowers annually (at a linear rate), and then they interpolate numbers
that lie between a few verified data points.
For instance, the CIA claimed that in 2000, Sudan had an IMR of 70, and its national IMR
dropped steadily to reach 61 by 2006. However the CIA number for IMR in Sudan in the year
2007 was nearly 92 a 50% increase over the previous year. Nevertheless, since making the
2007 estimate, the CIA has reported the Sudans IMR has, once again, resumed a downward
slope, at a linear rate, every year, so that by 2011, it was only 68. And all that occurred, we are
told, despite a the nation being ripped apart by a civil war.
Though they make no mention of it early in their article, near the end of their paper Miller
and Goldman tell us that they recognize that their primary data source, the CIA World Factbook,
has some factual errors and systematic biases.1 They write:
four nations in the datasetFrance, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, and Ireland
do not report live births [in a manner that is] entirely consistent with WHO standards. 1
Miller and Goldman did not explain either the WHO standards or how these four governments
keep records that are not consistent with said standard. Furthermore according to the UN and
other commentators, some governments falsify IMR records by excluding children who die
within the first week of life (recasting those deaths as stillbirths). Some governments will declare
that dead infants are at least 366 days old thus reclassifying infants as children. Do these
irregularities or other matters occur in the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, or the Netherlands?
But regardless of the source of the IMR reliability issues in those four nations, for some reason,
Miller and Goldman did not exclude them from their analysis.
16
Statistical determinations of Miller and Goldman
Putting aside the question of the reliability of CIA data, with their 30 nations selected,
Miller and Goldman looked at one independent variable, the numbers of vaccine doses that the
government in each of these nations recommends that infants receive before 12 months of age. 1
Then the authors performed three statistical tests:
(a) a Pearsons r on the correlation between the listed vaccine recommendation schedules
for infants < 12 months of age, and the IMR of each nation;
(b) a regression analysis on the unweighted IMR averages of five groups of nations in
which said groupings were based on the numbers of recommended vaccines in a given
nation; and
(c) a Tukey-Kramer test, comparing the unweighted average IMRs of those five groups. 1
Here is what they reported for these tests:
[a correlation] of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.460.85), p < 0.0001 providing evidence [that] IMR
and vaccine doses [sic] tend to increase together (emphasis added);
the best fit line is y = 0.157x + 1.34, where the slope coefficient for the independent
variable x (recommended vaccine doses) is non-zero (F = 173.9, p = 0.0009), and the
model generated an r2 = 0.983, meaning that 98.3% of the variation in [the unweighted
group mean IMR], is explained by the independent variable;
The one-way ANOVA yielded F = 650 with p = 0.001, indicating that the five
[unweighted group] mean IMRs are significantly different (emphasis added); and
Tukeys multiple comparison test found statistically significant differences between the
mean IMRs of those nations giving [sic] 1214 vaccine doses and (a) those giving 2123
doses (1.61, 95% CI 0.4572.75) and (b) those giving 2426 doses (1.83, 95% CI 0.542
3.11).1
Thus Miller and Goldman conclude that: (i) within a given political border, the more
vaccines that a government suggests or requires for infants, the higher that the national IMR will
be; and (ii) vaccine schedules [sic] alone account for nearly all the variation (over 98%) in
17
national IMR.1 Unfortunately, due to their methodological errors, and their reliance on a data
sample that is not normally distributed (and hence violates basic requirements to generate valid
correlation, regression and ANOVA measures),7, 19-21 we must reject the validity of these findings
completely.
In some ways, their report on the correlation between IMR and vaccine doses typifies the
limits of their work. Miller and Goldman found a correlation that is 0.7, yet their estimate is
bounded by a non-symmetrical 95% confidence interval that runs from 0.46 to 0.85, an interval
that reflects the Poissons distribution.1 Because this correlation is reflected in the linear
regression model, where the coefficient for the independent variable is statistically significant (or
not) in relation to the confidence interval about (where /SEE generates a statistic that follows a
symmetrical Students t-distribution), there was no need to report correlation or its confidence
interval, except for the sake of repetition.
Further as reported by Miller and Goldman, the unweighted mean IMR of the low dose
group (N = 6) was 3.36, and the high group (N = 4) was 5.19.1 However, if we calculate 95%
confidence intervals for the IMR of these respective groups, using the true proportions (the sum
total number of reported infant deaths, divided by the sum total of live births, for nations in that
group), the number of annual infant deaths fall between 2.84-3.02 (low group) and 5.96-6.1 (high
group) respectively. These numbers are even further apart than those proclaimed by Miller and
Goldman.1 Nevertheless as presented in Tables 10 and 11 (below), when we expand the sample
size, ANOVA calculations, using data from all national governments we find no significant
difference in the variances in national IMR based on vaccine recommendations or administration.
18
B. Samples and their Distributions Affect Statistical Tests
We know why Miller and Goldman settled on a sample size of 30, 1 nevertheless we must
ask, are their statistical inferences, from this sample, valid? The authors could have
constructed completely different samples: all nations of the world; industrialized nation;
countries with median ages over age 20; etc. Instead, Miller and Goldman constructed a data set
that had reliability issues and was inexplicably atheoretical.
Miller and Goldman committed another methodological error by selecting cases on the
dependent variable, i.e., IMR figures, for nations which were estimated to be lower than that of
the United States, for the year 2009.1 Such systematic bias is a cardinal sin in the world of
quantitative analysis.
The problem which such a practice is demonstrated thusly. Though I might want to know,
the seven common habits of successful people (which apparently includes (1) hating your
parents; (2) feeling insecure, and (3) pushing for principles) 17 without checking for the presence
of these attributes in unsuccessful people, any claim of a cause and effect relationship between
the habits and success is invalid. That is, we cannot be certain that the habits predict sucess. As
political scientists and economists have long noted, in the field of comparative analysis, unless
one also studies those countries left out of the sample the only things that can actually be
explained using a sample selected on the dependent variable are the differences across or within
the selected cases.18, 23
Because Miller and Goldman selected cases on the dependent variable, IMR equal to or
below the U.S. rate for 2009,1 their ad hoc sample screams for correction even on their own
terms (for instance, they excluded Taiwan, yet that country reported an IMR of 5 for the year
19
2009). While some of the 30 nations in their data set are comparable in some ways, e.g., rates of
literacy, GDP per capita, urbanization, and industrialization, reliance on IMR variable meant that
Miller and Goldman included Singapore, Israel, Malta, Cuba, Hong Kong, and Iceland. 1 When
compared to other nations in their sample, the United States, Canada, the UK, Australia, France,
and Italy, there are striking differences median household income, annual days of sunshine, per
capita calorie consumption, access to local organic produce, ethnic homo/heterogeneity, and
population density.
And though Miller and Goldman included a few Eastern European countries, they did not
compare the effects of vaccine schedules in all of the EU states or all EU candidate-countries. If
an argument could be made to justify the exclusion of certain African and Asian nations, which
have high levels of poverty or malnutrition, there is little justification to omit the likes of Croatia,
Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania, etc., when Miller and Goldman included
otherwise comparable countries like Czech Republic, Slovenia, Italy, Germany, and the United
States.1
And what of other countries in the Western Hemisphere? Miller and Goldman included
Cuba solely for its low IMR. But why should we not consider more industrialized nations and
those with significant urban populations from Latin America like Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, and
Argentina? Excluding nations just because they had IMRs higher than the United States meant
that Miller and Goldman lost valuable information and thus increased the chance of making
erroneous conclusions.21, 23
Ironically, given their methodology, Miller and Goldman should have excluded the U.S.
from their analysis. Using Healeys method12 to construct a confidence interval for a proportion,
20
their 30 nations have a weighted mean of 4.937 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, with a 95%
confidence interval, from 4.934-4.94. At 6.22 deaths per 1,000 live births then, the U.S. figure
was an extreme outlier and skewed their results.
III. Improved Method and Justification
A. The Need to Develop a Global Dataset looking at IMR and more
Using sources of the CIA, the WB, and the WHO, as a means to correct, update, and
estimate various demographic and economic data, I determined that the global IMR for 2009 was
approximately 42.4 per 1,000. For 2010, data from these organizations generate an estimate of
the global IMR to be a little over 40 per 1,000. Constructing 95% confidence intervals for these
estimates ranged from about 14 to 70 infant deaths per 1,000 live births.
Though Miller and Goldman determined an unweighted mean IMR of 4.325 for their data
set,1 the weighted mean IMR for 30 nations used by Miller and Goldman was 4.937. And with
99.9% confidence we can say that the true IMR for the sum total of all infant deaths divided by
all live births for this group of 30 nations did not exceed 4.941 deaths per 1,000. A t-test to
compare proportions, finds that the difference between the weighted IMR mean of the Miller and
Goldman sample and the population parameter, i.e., the true annual IMR for the globe, generates
a t statistic of over 600. Hence Miller and Goldman created a sample that was not reflective of
the population. And given that the mean of their sample was such an extreme outlier, compared
to the population parameter, the Miller and Goldman regression test, using such skewed data,
violated a basic assumption of regression.19, 20 Thus, there is no theoretical basis to accept the
validity of the quantitative analysis of Miller and Goldman. 1
21
B. How unrepresentative was the Miller and Goldman dataset?
The Miller and Goldman sample was drawn from countries that had IMRs that were
extremely unrepresentative of the population parameter for infant mortality. They could have
deduced that just by looking at the relative ranges: the Miller and Goldman dataset had IMRs
from 2.2 to 6.2,1 whereas for the entire world, the range for national IMRs, in the year 2009, ran
from 2.2 to 179. Another way to understand the unrepresentativeness of the Miller and Goldman
dataset is to recognize that 22 countries in their sample (N = 30) were found in Northern or
Western Europe, and or were EU states. In Tables 4 and 5 (below), I show, by political region,
how global infant deaths are distributed. The regions of Asia and Africa either constitute the
lions share or are over-represented in this tragic statistic.
Among other things, these tables highlight how global IMR is disproportionately visited
upon Africa, while most of Europe has relatively few infant deaths. Miller and Goldman used a
sample of outliers, and they know it in fact, they tell us so. 1
Table 4. Regional analysis of IMR (2009) (global rate = 42.4/1,000) (N=194)

Region or Countries Number of Nations Percentage of Relative number
(% of global pop.) Global IMR of infant deaths
Muslim and Arab nations 22 (11.48) 6.66% 2.83
(including North Africa)
Tropical Asia 15 (33.85) 37.14% 15.75
Sub-Saharan Africa 45 (12.56) 39.44% 16.72
China & Afghanistan 2 (20) 8.03% 3.4
Others 90 (22) 8.73% 3.7
22
Table 5: Regional analysis of IMR (2009) (global rate = 42.4/1,000) (N=194)

Region or Country Number of Nations Percentage of Relative number
(% of global pop.) Global IMR of infant deaths
Asia (including Turkey) 48 (62) 50.9% 21.58
Africa 53 (15) 43.4% 18.41
Brazil, Mexico, U.S., and Haiti 4 (9) 2.7% 1.16
Russia 1 (2) 0.3% 0.13
All other nations 88 (12) 2.6% 1.15
After arguing that national vaccine recommendations of governments account for 98% of
the variance in national IMR and that vaccines are positively correlated with IMR at a
statistically significant level, Miller and Goldman make passing reference to nations left out of
their sample which administer fewer vaccines than the U.S., yet still have far higher IMRs.1
It is instructive to note that many developing nations require [sic] their infants to receive
multiple vaccine doses and have coverage rates of 90% or better, yet their IMRs are
poor. For example, Gambia requires [sic] its infants to receive 22 vaccine doses yet its
IMR is 68.8. Mongolia requires [sic] 22 vaccine doses [and has] an IMR of 39.9.1
So Miller and Goldman concede that at least two nations give fewer vaccines, yet have
higher IMRs than the United States. But what are the relevant data for another 158 countries of
which information is also available?
According to the WHO, only five countries recommend more vaccine doses to infants
than the United States.8 These five countries all have higher IMRs than the United States. More
significantly, there are at least 155 nations that give fewer shots to their babies than does the U.S.,
yet they too have an IMR higher than the United States. To the passive observer, it would appear
then that the conventional wisdom is correct, namely: more vaccines do lower national IMRs.
To solve the puzzle offered by apparently contradictory data then, I suggest that we use more data
23
points. Whereas Miller and Goldman used as few as five data points, 1 we can construct a cross-
sectional data set with a sample of nearly 200.
C. Correcting the sample, and data modification
To improve upon the work of Miller and Goldman,1 my first correction considers data
from nearly all nations of the world. Taking information from the WHO, the CIA, and the WB, I
generate data tables with an N of 194 and 195 for the years 2009 and 2010. Nevertheless in order
to calculate valid statistical tests, it is not sufficient merely to collect more data points. The tests
employed by Miller and Goldman, Pearsons r, linear regression, ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer
test,1 only provide valid inferences when analyzing ratio data that are normally distributed or
nearly normally distributed.7, 10, 12, 19, 20 One way to determine whether such data fall within
acceptable bounds of normality is to evaluate the variance in these samples and count the
proportion of extreme outliers.12, 20, 21
We know that national IMR data is heavily skewed in a positive direction. Table 6
(below) provides some description of that data, and the independent variable selected by Miller
and Goldman: vaccine recommendations.1 Both vaccine recommendations and its derivative, the
number of vaccines administered, are not normally distributed variables (see Table 6, below). To
some degree, this lack of normality is a function of region. For example, many nations of North
Africa and neighboring areas of the Middle East suggest 21 or 22 doses for infants, and they do
not use the MMR.8
24
Table 6. Consideration of the Skewness of the Raw Data (2009, N = 194)

Variable Outliers (Z < -2) Outliers (Z > +2) Total % outliers
IMR 0* 5 2.6 (one tail)
Required shots 9 5 7.2
Administered shots 10 5 7.7
Sources: CIA World Factbook; WHO
* Raw data for national IMR is so skewed that no standard scores are below z = -1.243.
To generate valid statistical inferences, I had to correct the lack of normality in the IMR
and vaccine variables. As reported in Table 6 (above), the raw data for 2009 shows that variables
of IMR, Recommended shots, and Administered shots exhibit too many outliers and or skewed
distributions.
The raw data (N = 194) for national IMR for the year 2009 is skewed, positively to an
extreme. That is, it falls far outside the bounds of the standard normal curve. The distributions
of the vaccine variables have fat tails, with more than 5% of the standardized scores (Z-scores)
exceeding an absolute value of 1.96. Thus we cannot use this raw data to develop valid statistics
with the tests employed by Miller and Goldman. 1
There also was a skewness problem with the other independent variable that I wanted to
put into the model, per capita GDP. Global per capita GDP figures are heavily skewed as nearly
three billion people live on less than 2 USD per day. 22 The global mean GDP per capita is around
14,493.4 USD, but the standard deviation is 14,437.
To adjust for skewness problems, it is often useful to transform the economic data, like
per capita GDP, into natural log (LN) scores.20, 21 I also elected to transform the other skewed
variables into natural log (LN) scores.
25
Converting the raw data here into LN scores fixes two problems. First, with variables like
IMR and GDP per capita, those that demonstrate extreme positive skewness, the LN
transformation shrinks the variance and creates a more normal distribution. 21 Second, the
transformation reduces the proportion of scores that are outliers. 20 After converting the raw data
for GDP per capita and the data for vaccine doses into LN scores, the new, normally distributed,
LN-transformed variables (also called instrumental variables) allow for valid inferences to be
drawn from applications of statistical tests like regression and ANOVA that require normally
distributed data.7, 19-21
The LN converted data for IMR and GDP per capita for 2010 (N = 195) display the
following properties:
(a) LN-IMR has a range 0.47 4.738, with a mean of 2.848, with only three standardized
scores (Z-scores) below -2. Overall the distribution shows slight negative skewness; and
(b) LN-GDP exhibits a range of 5.737 11.857, with a mean of 8.832, and few extreme
cases. Four cases are two deviations below the mean, and two cases are two standard
deviations above the mean.
IV. Proper Model Specification, Tests, and Results
Miller and Goldman present regression analysis as evidence that more vaccines raise
IMR.1 We had reason to reject their conclusions, due to the fact that their data were not normally
distributed.19, 20 Another reason to doubt their findings was because they used only one
explanatory variable.21 By regressing only one variable, recommended vaccine doses, on IMR,
they violated a rule of regression: the model must be specified properly. 21 A model is specified
26
properly when all significant variables are included otherwise the coefficients of the included
variables are likely to report significant coefficients due to omitted variable bias.21, 23
Miller and Goldman omitted a number of factors that they actually believe are
determinant of national IMR and they told us so. 1 They identify at least seven variables, in
addition to vaccines, that they believe are linked to IMR: (1) clean water; (2) nutrition; (3)
sanitation; (4) wealth; (5) health care [sic]; (6) vaccine composition; and (7) preterm births. 1
Given their beliefs, it was inexcusable for Miller and Goldman to present an econometric model
without some of these variables, or at least a surrogate measure of any of them. Hence to
improve upon their model, I refine the vaccine doses variable using the average of actual
administered doses and add GDP per capita.
A. How Many Shots for Baby?
As noted above, Miller and Goldman chose to adopt a nations recommended vaccine list
as their only independent variable. 1 Such was problematic for a number of reasons. First, not all
vaccines are the same. Different manufacturers create different formulations for vaccines that
purport to address the same disease. And not all countries use the same type of vaccine for polio,
measles, etc. Yet Miller and Goldman made no adjustment for vaccine ingredient compositions
(e.g., the amount of toxic metals like aluminum or mercury, the use and or presence of varied
animal and human proteins, live versus attenuated viruses, types of industrial surfactants, etc.).
Second, Miller and Goldman did not account for the fact that different nations have different lists.
That is, not only do different nations apply different shots for the same diseases, they apply shots
for different diseases too. Note, Japan and other Asian nations administer a Japanese encephalitis
vaccine (JE), but the vast majority of nations around the world do not. 8 Beyond this, the authors
27
did not evaluate the effects of giving multiple dosages at the same time, nor account for temporal
differences as to when injections are scheduled. 1 Given that the CDC long-found that the timing
the administration of the MMR correlates with risks of autism and other neurological disorders,
such an effect must be acknowledged if not measured and analyzed. 53
Rather than adjust for varied administration rates, much less different types of vaccines,
and distinctions in timing, Miller and Goldman simply used the recommended list as a measure
of how many doses of vaccines than the average infant received in a given country. 1 Such a move
is so suspect that Miller and Goldman allude to the idea that their decision generates biased
estimates for the coefficient of the independent variable. Miller and Goldman say this:
No adjustment was made for national vaccine coverage rates that percentage of the
target population that receives the recommended vaccines. 1
Nevertheless Miller and Goldman claim that their failure to make any adjustment was acceptable
on the grounds that: the nations in this study had coverage rates in the 90%99% range for the
most commonly recommended vaccines. 1
Without citing any references showing the coverage rates, and without explaining why
that range is unproblematic, for statistical purposes, the authors declare that a national
vaccination rate under 100% is equal to 100%, for statistical purposes of measuring the effects of
vaccines on IMR. Speaking of the difference between 100% vaccination rate and anything above
90%, Miller and Goldman announce, [the difference] is unlikely to have impacted [sic] the
analyses.1 But how can they know that the coverage rate factor was unlikely to have impacted
the analysis? They never checked.
28
Not every vaccine recommended by a government is administered to each infant in that
country.24, 26, 27 Similarly, we cannot presume that each type of or scheduled vaccine is
administered in the same proportion within a country. 25-27 For example, after the 1998 Lancet
article, on the MMR, by Wakefield et al., 24 the number of children in the UK who received the
combined form of the MMR decreased.25 In the U.S., recent data argues that up to 25% of all
children have not received all recommended vaccines.26 Looking at one sub-population, vaccine
coverage for MMR among Somalian immigrants, in and around Minneapolis, Minnesota, has
dropped to 57%.27
Regardless of the reason why any particular vaccine is administered at a rate below 99%,
many parts of the world routinely see numbers below 90% for particular shots or even combined
vaccines.8 UNICEF estimates that in Southeast Asia, less than 80% of infants get a third dose of
DTP.8 Even in parts of the industrialized West, the third dose of DTP (or DTaP) is administered
only about 95% of the time.8
As a means to be more accurate in the estimates of the average number of vaccine doses
that infants receive in a given country, I constructed a variable using data from the WHO on
administration rate estimates, per vaccine, per nation. 8 The range on the number of doses of
vaccine administered for 2010 was from 8.32 (Somalia) to 28.66 (Brazil), with a global average
of 18.75. By comparison, the recommended vaccine lists for these same countries, present the
range from 9 (Monaco) to 29 (Brazil), and a global average of 20.64. With this in mind, it is
important to see that by looking at vaccine administration, even if the aggregate numbers seem
similar, particular vaccine-IMR data pairings differ with that which would have been generated
by Miller and Goldman.1
29
B. Why use GDP per capita?
IMRs will remain high in nations that cannot provide clean water, proper
nutrition, improved sanitation, and better access to health care. ... As developing
nations ascend to higher socio-economic living standards, a closer inspection of
all factors contributing to infant deaths must be made
(Miller and Goldman 2011, 1423).
In reassessing Miller and Goldman,1 we have theoretical justifications to add a large
number of nations to the sample. And given the recognition of Miller and Goldman, that some
nations have high IMRs, but administer fewer vaccines than the U.S., 1 it is expected that as we
increase the sample size, the strength of the correlation coefficient between the vaccine dose
variable and national IMR should decrease, and might not be statistically significant.
Thus the larger sample size, and the admissions of Miller and Goldman, counsel the need
to consider at least one more independent variable when analyzing national IMR. Miller and
Goldman recognize that access to food, potable water, and even some medical treatments play a
role in IMR.1 While there is tremendous international and intranational variation in how we
might measure those, one logical choice for a surrogate measure is a better standard of living
assumed in terms of per capita GDP.
V. Discussion: What Do All the Data Show?
A. Correlations
In Tables 7 and 8 (below), we see the relevant correlations for data from the years 2009
and 2010. Recall, Miller and Goldman claim that with an N = 30, the raw data show a
statistically significant correlation between IMR and recommended vaccine doses, with a
Pearsons r of 0.7.1 But with a larger sample of normally distributed data we see that there is
30
no significant correlation between vaccine doses and national IMR figures. However, GDP per
capita does demonstrate a statistically significant correlation with IMR.
Table 7. Correlations with raw IMR data on other variables

2009 data (N = 194) 2010 data (N = 195)
Recommended doses < 12 months 0.216 0.194
Administered doses < 12 months -0.170 -0.211
GDP per capita -0.447* -0.513*
* signifies that the correlation is statistically significant, at the p 0.05 level
Table 8. Correlations with LN-IMR on other variables

2009 data (N = 194) 2010 data (N = 195)
LN-recommended doses -0.018 -0.056
LN-administered doses -0.293 -0.308
LN-GDP per capita -0.838* -0.876*
* signifies that the correlation is statistically significant, at the p 0.05 level
B. What does the regression really show?
Miller and Goldman purported to regress national vaccine lists on national IMR for 30
countries. But instead of using 30 data points, they used a mere five data points by constructing
unweighted averages, of IMR, of five different groups of nations.1 Such a methodology is
objectionable on numerous fronts. As noted above, their data was not normally distributed, and
was not reflective of the larger population. Worse still, there was no methodological justification
offered to construct unweighted averages for the IMR of five groups of nations.
To construct regression tests that allow for valid statistical inferences, I took a different
tack. First I used data sets with nearly 200 data points. Further because the distribution of the
raw data for the year 2009 (N = 194) and the year 2010 (N = 195) failed to meet the regression
31
assumptions of normality, I ran regression tests with LN-modified data. (Because correlations of
the raw data show that neither vaccine recommendations, nor the number of administered
vaccines affect IMR, I only regressed the LN-administered vaccine variable on LN-IMR).
Models I employ measure national infant mortality rate (IMR) as a function of: (i) the
average number of vaccine doses given per infant in a nation; and (ii) the per capita GDP in that
nation. Symbolically then we can claim that IMR = f(shots, GDP). As a linear equation, the
form becomes:
Y = a + b1X1 + b2X2 + e
where Y stands for LN of national IMR, a is the intercept, X 1 is the LN of the number of shots
received and X2 is the LN-GDP per capita. The coefficients, b1 and b2, if statistically significant,
tell us the relative effect that each independent variable has on the dependent, and e is the
residual term, signifying that other factors might also account for the variance in Y.
In order to make valid interpretations from the regression results, the residual term must
display constant variance, homoskedasticity. Though Miller and Goldman did not report the
residuals in their model,1 when running this type of cross-sectional analysis, if we find
heteroskedasticity in the residuals, we must correct the data. 28 When doing cross-sectional
analysis, such as that done by Miller and Goldman, and in this study, Kleiber and Zeileis suggest
the Goldfeld-Quant test check for heteroskedasticity in the residual. 28
Table 9 (below) displays the regression results using the LN-modified data from the years
2009 and 2010, and reports the Goldfeld-Quant test for heteroskedasticity in the residual. From
Table 9, we see that in 2009 and 2010, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the variable LN-
shots (i.e., the LN of the average numbers of doses of vaccines given to infants in a given
32
country) has no effect on LN-IMR. Conversely, LN-GDP is significantly related to LN-IMR.
Importantly whereas the model, using two independent variables, explains much of the variance
in LN-IMR (70% for the 2009, and 76% for 2010), when we eliminate the LN-shots variable, the
short regression (Models 2 and 4) reports no loss of explanatory power. And as the Goldfeld-
Quant test results argue, for both years, the residuals obey the regression requirement of
homoskedastic variance. Thus, in comparison to the claims of Miller and Goldman, we can say
with a great deal of confidence, it is not that vaccines explain nearly 98% of the variance in
national IMR, instead, when looking at nations across the globe, vaccines make no difference.
Table 9. Regression Analysis

2009 (N = 194) 2010 (N = 195)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
coefficients (standard errors are in parenthesis)
constant 8.56* (.648) 8.78* (.276) 9.225* (.616) 9.481* (.266)
LN-shots 0.08 (.205) 0.092 (.198)
LN-GDP -0.657* (.031) -0.657* (.031) -0.75* (.03) -0.75* (.03)
r2 0.702 0.702 0.768 0.767
F-statistic 225.24** 452.38** 316.93** 636.24**
G-Q statistic 1.36*** 1.2***
* significant at p value < 0.001
** Model reports significance with p < 0.001
*** Goldfeld-Quant test statistic < than the F critical value for = 0.05
C. Re-examining ANOVA
After running a regression with bad data, using a mere five data points, and failing to
report whether the residuals exhibited homoskedasticity, all the while violating at least three
33
regression assumptions, Miller and Goldman perform an ANOVA, and a Tukey-Kramer test to
confirm their wrongly ascertained conclusions about the relationship between vaccines and IMR. 1
In running an ANOVA, Miller and Goldman committed a fundamental error by declaring
that their IMR numbers were greater than one, even though IMR is a proportion that is measured
in thousandths. Though they did not describe their method, we know that Miller and Goldman
wrongly assumed that IMR data can be expressed as positive numbers that are greater than one,
as evidenced by the figures that they presented in their ANOVA unweighted IMR means for
five different groups of nations.1
Given their definitions of IMR as positive numbers that are greater than one Miller
and Goldman claim that the low group (12-14 vaccine doses) has a mean IMR of x = 3.36, and
two higher dose groups (21-23 and 24-26) have unweighted mean IMRs of x = 4.97 and x =
5.18.1 Such determinations are improper and can only generate statistical errors, because IMR is
a mere ratio, not a number greater than one.
Using their numbers, Miller and Goldman conclude:
Tukeys multiple comparison test found statistical significance in the differences

between the mean IMRs of those nations giving 1214 vaccine doses and (a) those giving
2123 doses and (b) those giving 2426 doses.1 (emphasis added)
These declarations are wrong because of the methodological error in not reading the IMR
numbers as proportions.
To make valid inferences about IMR with ANOVA, we must calculate the numbers using
the raw data (see Table 10, where I replicate the Miller and Goldman groupings with a larger N).
For example, the declaration that Sweden has an IMR of 2.75 means that 2.75 babies per 1,000
live births die before reaching age one. This number is derived from the raw data. In 2009,
34
Sweden had approximately 112,000 births and 308 infant deaths this ratio, 308 / 112,000
generates the proportion 0.00275.
To perform proper statistical analysis on IMR numbers then, we must use the raw data.
When Miller and Goldman ignore the raw data that generate IMR figures, but instead construct
unweighted IMR means by taking proportions for a collection of nations, multiplying each score
by 1,000, summing totals, and then taking an average, the result can misrepresent true effects of
vaccines by as much as a factor of 2,000. Consider, Iceland has approximately 5,000 births per
year, but Japan has over 1 million. If asked to determine the annual number of infant deaths per
1,000 in these two nations combined, the Miller and Goldman technique would construct a simple
average of the IMRs of these nations, instead of dividing the sum of the total number of infant
deaths by the sum of the total number of live births in those countries. If we want to know the
combined IMR of Japan and Iceland, there is no justification not to aggregate their birth and
death numbers, and Miller and Goldman offer none.
Once we determine the weighted IMR for a group of nations, we must run the ANOVA
test with the true ratios not assume that the IMR is a number greater than one.
Table 10. Comparing the IMR numbers used in the Miller and Goldman
ANOVA method against ANOVA using proper ratio calculations (N = 194)
Range of Vaccine Doses Unweighted IMR average (via the Weighted IMR ratio
(number of nations) Miller and Goldman method)
Group 1: 9 14 (9) 4.91 0.01
Group 2: 15 18 (30) 22.16 0.02883
Group 3: 19 21 (79) 32.24 0.04526
Group 4: 22 - 24 (64) 39.54 0.05451
Group 5: 25 29 (12) 27.45 0.01891
Grand Mean 31.53 0.04240
35
In Table 10, I report data for 2009. Adopting the Miller and Goldman premise, that
grouping nations into five categories, based upon vaccine dose recommendation numbers is a
valid way to construct an ANOVA, and to test the proposition of whether we see differences
across groups, I present five groups of nations, pooled according to the average number of
vaccine doses administered to infants (N = 194), and report the unweighted IMR mean (the
Miller and Goldman method) and true, raw data IMR estimates. Arguably, the Miller and
Goldman method underestimates both: (i) the global IMR by 25% (31.53 per 1,000 versus 42.4);
and (ii) the IMR for the four lowest categories. Further errors using the Miller and Goldman
method show that its application would overestimate the IMR for high-vaccine recommendation
countries by nearly 50%. Such miscalculations and or misapplications of data measures generate
discrepancies and problems when making ANOVA comparisons.
In order to create a meaningful F-statistic, with the Miller and Goldman technique, one
must claim that the global mean for IMR is 31.53 even though CIA data holds that, on average, in
2009, everywhere on earth, 42.4 infants, for every 1,000 live births, died before reaching age one.
If one were to use the true global mean of 42.4 per 1,000, presented as a number greater than one,
along with a set of five groups of unweighted means of IMRs (via the Miller and Goldman
method), the F-calculation generates a negative number, as the Sum of Squares Between the
groups (SSB) is larger than the Total Sum of Squares (TSS). That is, the ANOVA test provides
an impossible result. Conversely, if we use the wrong number for the Grand Mean of IMR,
31.53, as would be derived with the Miller and Goldman method, then the F-statistic is 3.83 (p <
0.005). Such a calculation generates a Type I error in which we wrongly reject the null
36
hypothesis, that there is no difference in the means between the groups, when it should be
accepted (see Table 11 below).
In Tables 11, 12, and 13 (below), using data from 2010 (N = 195), starting with the same
five categories (ranging from low to high vaccine dose levels), yet correcting the mistakes of the
Miller and Goldman technique, I show the results of valid ANOVA tests. Tables 11 and 12 show
that, as expected (based on the correlation tables and regression analysis in Tables 7, 8, and 9),
when grouping nations with their raw numbers, for both vaccines recommended and vaccines
administered, no statistically significant differences are found in comparing the mean IMRs of
these groups. The F-statistics, measuring for the presence of statistically significant differences
in the mean IMRs between groups, do not exceed the critical value for < 0.05. On the other
hand, in Table 13, when we look at the role of per capita GDP, there is a measurable difference in
group IMR.
Table 11. ANOVA recommended doses, 2010 data (N = 195)

Recommended vaccines doses < 12 months (lowest to highest)
Group (number of nations) Recommended doses Weighted Group IMR
Group 1 (9) 9 14 0.0072
Group 2 (30) 15 18 0.0288
Group 3 (79) 19 21 0.0453
Group 4 (64) 22 24 0.0545
Group 5 (12) 25 29 0.0189
Significance F(4,190) = 2.4192 Calculated F = 2.1445 ( = 0.077)
In one respect, Table 11 offers credence to the idea of Miller and Goldman, that the more
vaccine doses that a national government suggests for its infants, the resultant IMR will rise.
These data show that the nine (9) nations which suggest the fewest vaccines have the lowest
37
levels of IMR, a mere 7.2. Yet an IMR of 7.2 per 1,000 live births is far in excess of those in
each of the nations used in the Miller and Goldman data set. That aside, it should not be lost on
the casual observer that for the year 2010, those 12 nations that suggest the most infant vaccine
doses (25-29) see far fewer deaths than groups 2, 3, and 4 which suggest fewer.
Table 12. ANOVA administered doses, 2010 data (N = 195)

Administered vaccines doses < 12 months (lowest to highest)
Group (number of nations) Administered doses Weighted Group IMR
Group 1 (10) 8.32 12.41 0.0332
Group 2 (32) 12.42 16.5 0.0534
Group 3 (96) 16.51 20.6 0.0362
Group 4 (52) 20.61 24.7 0.0210
Group 5 (5) 24.71 28.66 0.0200
Even if one speculated that extreme differences in the nations which suggest 9-14 vaccine doses,
as compared to those which suggest 22-24 doses, might serve as a basis for fruitful comparisons,
we see that when counting vaccine dose administration there is even less of a difference on the
IMR numbers between groups (Table 12 above, reporting an F statistic that generates an =
0.757). In sum, when comparing the mean IMRs between all five groups (N = 195), we cannot
reject the null hypothesis that at the national level, vaccine recommendations (or actual vaccine
administration) figures per capita have no effect on IMR numbers. Such a finding completely
refutes the conclusion of Miller and Goldman. 1
Given the results from Tables 11 and 12 (above), we need not perform the Tukey-Kramer
test to compare IMR numbers between groups. When the F-statistic does not exceed a given
38
critical value, the null cannot be rejected. Hence we presume that there is no statistical difference
between the group means.
Table 13. ANOVA LN-GDP per capita, 2010 data (N = 195)

LN of national GDP per capita (ranked lowest to highest)
Group (number of nations) LN-GDP per capita Weighted Group IMR
Group 1 (18) 5.7 6.97 0.0854
Group 2 (49) 6.98 8.25 0.0561
Group 3 (63) 8.26 9.53 0.0248
Group 4 (57) 9.54 10.81 0.0084
Group 5 (8) 10.82 12.09 0.0076
When the ANOVA produces an F that allows us to reject the null, as with Table 13 (above), then
the Tukey-Kramer test will clarify the degree to which any differences between group means are
statistically significant. Recall when multiple means are compared, the Tukey-Kramer test is
advantageous to the Students t-statistic, because a Students t-test overestimates the differences
and thus increases the chance of generating a type I error.
The results of the ANOVA on the effects of the LN of national GDP per capita on national
IMR are important for two reasons. Not only does the F-statistic tell us that with a high degree of
confidence (p < 0.00000001) we can reject the null, but the groupings show a continual decrease
in IMR as national per capita GDP rises.
Contrary to the claim of Miller and Goldman, 1 evidence shows us that vaccine doses are
not associated with changes in IMR. However, when we group nations according to their LN-
GDP per capita scores (Table 13 above), we do see statistically significantly differences in IMR.
The treatment effect, a relative level of GDP per capita, is associated with a change in the IMR.
39
In Table 14 (below), I report the results of a Tukey-Kramer test applied to the data from
Table 13. The findings show that there are statistically differences (p < 0.01) when comparing
the weighted mean IMRs, of certain groups of nations, where those groups are clustered
according to ascending range of grades of the LN of the national GDP.
Table 14. Tukey-Kramer analysis of differences between groups

Group 1 Group 3 Group 1 Group 4 Group 1 Group 5
Mean difference 60.55/1000 76.96/1000 77.74/1000

critical value ( = .01) 41.67/1000 42.15/1000 66.25/1000
When comparing this specific ANOVA result, which argues that family income, qua
national-level economic activity, affects IMR, to the musings of Miller and Goldman, we have
reason to doubt what they insisted was the near absolute role of vaccines in determining national
IMR. Ironically though they never measured it or suggested that it is an explanatory variable,
Miller and Goldman alluded to the role of national economic development on IMRs (and thus
household disposable income). They write:
As developing nations improve in terms of proper nutrition, sanitation, clean water, and
access to health care, a critical IMR 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 [sic] could have been saved from these causes would have been
saved.1
VI. Conclusion and the Way Forward
I have demonstrated that, when looking at nearly every nation on earth, infant vaccines
show no efficacy on reducing infant mortality. With properly run regression tests, we cannot see
that the number of doses suggested or administered to infants plays any role in reducing (or
raising) national IMR numbers. At the same time, data show that we must reject the Miller and
40
Goldman thesis that increasing vaccine doses recommendations raises national IMR. After all
in Somalia, the government suggests 17 doses, administers an average less than 9 per infant, yet
sees a national IMR of 108.
Overall, we have reason to suspect that something more than the vaccines (their absence
or application) causes infant deaths. Thus, this analysis refutes both the claim of Miller and
Goldman and those proffered by vaccine advocates like Paul Offit, Bill Gates, the American
Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the Public Health Agency of Canada, and others.
Interestingly enough if we reflect on other comments and speculations of Miller and
Goldman, this paper provides support for their argument that perhaps the IMR-vaccine link only
manifests once a nation reaches a critical level of socio-economic development. As Table 14
(above) shows, there is a distinct difference in IMR when comparing the extremely poor and
other nations. One interpretation of the ANOVA results from Table 14 (above) argues that the
threshold for a significant drop in national IMR from numbers far above 30 per 1,000 births to
something below 20 is a per capita GDP of 14,000 (USD), a level seen the nation of Chile for
example. A significant drop might even be seen when GDP per capita is merely 8,900 (USD),
the estimate for China in 2012.
To test the theory of IMR and levels of socio-economic development, one strategy would
be to pull out regional effects, say to omit sub-Saharan Africa or poorer countries of Asia and the
Pacific. I do this by using the group of 88 nations from 2010 (see Table 5 above) which have
neither particularly high IMRs, nor contribute a large number of annual infant deaths to world
totals. This group of 88 consists of nearly all Europe, most of the Americas, Oceania, and
Micronesia. The regression results are revealing.
41
Table 15. Regression Analysis: selected cases from 2010 (N = 88)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
coefficients (standard errors in parenthesis)
constant 7.157** (0.99) 0.0 (0.0628) 0.0 (0.101) 0.0 (0.266)
LN-doses 0.433* (0.241) 0.118* (0.0657) .0332** (0.102) ---
LN-GDP per capita -0.645** (0.055) -0.772** (0.066) --- -0.805** (0.064)
2
r ; F-statistic 0.661; 82.77 0.661; 82.77 0.11; 10.63 0.648; 158.201
* significant at p value < 0.05, one-tail
** significant at p value < 0.01, two-tail
In Table 15 (above) we see the effects of vaccine administration and GDP per capita on
national IMR. In Model 1, we see the regression using LN modified data. Model 2 reports the
standardized betas. Model 2 shows the relative effect of each variable on Y. 29 Models 3 and 4 are
short regressions, where only one variable is regressed on Y. This step permits us to consider
how much of the r2 number is accounted for by each independent variable. 29
In Table 15 (above) we see that both the average number of shots administered to a child
and per capita GDP have a statistically significant effect on national IMR. As Miller and
Goldman predicted, infant vaccine doses do increase IMR. And as expected, GDP per capita has
a negative relationship with IMR. What is remarkable though is that, as presented in Model 2,
the per capita GDP variable has more than a 6.5 times greater effect on Y than does the vaccine
doses variable (-0.772 / 0.118 = -6.53). Models 3 and 4 clarify this claim as reported in the r2.
There we see that the vaccine doses variable accounts for only 11% of the variance in Y, whereas
GDP per capita explains nearly 65%.
Another strategy, to get to the bottom of the question about the vaccine-effect on IMR,
would be to construct a cross-sectional, time-series study. With enough data points, even if the
42
analysis were limited to wealthier nations, because over the last three decades the numbers of
vaccines, given to infants, have changed (e.g., increasing in number, earlier dates of
administration, and changing compositions), multiple years of data might provide more insights.
Putting aside the faulty general claim of Miller and Goldman, there is a better and more
nuanced argument offered by Miller and Goldman near the end of their paper. There they say
that once the benefits of nutrition, potable water, and sanitation reach their maximum, as to lower
IMR well under 4 per 1,000, countries of the industrialized world can expect to see a rise in IMR
when they begin to administer more infant vaccines. While we lack statistical certainty to
support that claim, I found one set of national-level data that alludes to its veracity and could
prove fruitful in answering the question.
A. American Data: vaccines kill healthy babies
If we pierce U.S. data from 1998, there is reason to believe that vaccines are positively
correlated with IMR. Those IMR data show that overall, in the United States, if an infant died
before reaching age 1, it was most likely to occur in the first four weeks of life.30 Incredibly,
regardless of maternal factors of the mothers ethnicity, age, or educational level, infant mortality
rates between 0-28 days of life were generally double that of the period running from day 29
through 365 of that first year.30 This ratio held true both for babies born before 32 weeks or
between 32-36 weeks.30 There is one remarkable exception to this trend, namely American
babies born weighing more than 2,500 grams.
In 1998, for American babies weighing over 2,500 grams at birth, regardless of ethnicity,
and no matter the age or socio-economic characteristics of the mother, this sub-group reported an
astonishing low IMR, 2.6 per 1,000.30 If the deaths in this group followed the pattern of all other
43
categories of American babies, we would expect that two-thirds of the deaths, about 1.73, would
occur in the first month of life. Yet for these healthy babies, within the first 28 days, only 0.9
deaths occurred per 1,000.30 Over the next 11 months, this group saw 1.7 deaths per 1,000.30
What could explain why the healthiest American babies those who are far less likely to be born
to teenage mothers (i.e. the poor), and more likely to have mothers with at least a high school
diploma would die twice as often after meeting the four week milestone? Could the key factor
be anything but vaccination?
To investigate the question more closely then, at a minimum, we should run statistical
tests that distinguish between: (i) types of vaccines; (ii) their particular formulations; (iii) dates of
administration; and (iv) various combinations of vaccine doses. For example, pro-vaccinators
admit that, on their own terms, no jab is 100% effective at preventing illness. And there is no
evidence that all vaccines are 100% safe.
Speaking about the meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MCV4), Alli says that the vaccine
is about 90% effective.31 By that she means that the only 90% of recipients develop
meningococcal antibodies after injection. 31 Alli adds that the vaccine protects [sic] against only
four of the bacteria known to cause [sic] meningitis.31 And even though the vaccine has nano-
sized inorganic aluminum, the information sheet for MCV4 adds: the vaccine may be given to
pregnant women.
But there are even greater problems with vaccines than their general ineffectiveness and
or composition with neurotoxic aluminum. Consider the interaction effects between those shots
with aluminum, e.g., DTaP (Tripedia), pneumococcal (Prevnar), Haemophilus Influenzae type b
(Hib), and MCV4,32-35 and those with mercury including oft-given flu vaccines like Fluvirin,
44
Afluria, and Fluzone.33, 35 As Ayoub explains, in the United States, many vaccines have inorganic
aluminum (as an adjuvant). What the body cannot chelate, it traps, as to isolate the toxic metal
from vital organs.33 If a person (or infant) is given a vaccine with aluminum, and then later
subjected to a thimerisol-containing vaccine, a mercury-aluminum interaction causes the
previously stored aluminum to flood into the bloodstream. 33 In older children, aluminum
poisoning presents as Attention Deficit Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyper-Activity Disorder,
autism, memory loss, anxiety, hypersensitivity to light and noise, polio, chronic fatigue, tics,
seizures, epilepsy, respiratory distress, and more.36, 37 In younger children and infants, aluminum
toxicity can bring death misdiagnosed as SIDS or Shaken Baby Syndrome. 33, 37
B. Other Concerns about Vaccines
Interaction effects aside, individual vaccines are known to be deadly, such as recorded in
2003. At that time, a European group reported that from fall of the year 2000 through the spring
of 2003, five children had died within 24 hours of receiving the Hexavac or Infanrix Hexa
vaccines.38
When we think of combinations of and the pacing of administration of vaccines, note that
in Albania, for instance, the government uses the five-in-one DTaP with Hib and Hep B, and
schedules the injection of a polio vaccine (with three strains of polio myelitis) 39, 40 at the same
time.8 Other countries have the practice of injecting infants with a four-in-one DTPwHib, then
administer HepB and polio vaccines in other shots. 8 In the West, the MMR is commonly given at
12 months, but in much of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, MMR is not on the schedule. 8
Rather these countries advocate a single-dose measles vaccine at age nine months. 8 If the rest of
the world is like the U.S., and sees only 35-37% of infant deaths in the first month of life 30, 41, 42,
45
perhaps our analysis of vaccines should look to solve the puzzle of infant deaths that occur after
the first four weeks of life?
And what of the mothers? Sherry Rogers, MD, claims that most Americans, including
women of age-bearing years are carrying 5-10 kilos of plastics (phthalates) in their bodies. 43
Rogers also posits that pregnant American women of today have high levels of toxic metals,
mercury, aluminum, cadmium, etc., which are transferred to the fetus, affecting both fetal
development and the post-partum health of the infants. 44
Research should also look at vaccine records of the mothers to determine if those
factor into IMR. In one sense, current statistics already conflate these numbers. For example, the
World Health Organization encourages and monitors the use of a supposed tuberculosis vaccine,
Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG). 8 Save few exceptions (like Canadas Nunavat and Northwest
Territories), BCG is not given to infants. Instead the WHO conducts surveys to see what
percentage of pregnant women receive the BCG, yet the WHO records such as if the infant
received the vaccine.8 The WHO claims that if the pregnant mother gets the shot, then the child
has protection-at-birth (PAB) against tuberculosis. So while UNICEF reports that Albania gives
22 vaccine doses to infants,8 that list includes BCG, apparently received in utero.
Following CDC guidelines,45 mainstream American and Canadian OB/GYNs urge
pregnant women to take vaccines even those with thimerosal and nano aluminum in the name
of preventing infection from flu, pertussis (Tdap), hepatitis A and B, meningococcal and
pneumococcal disease.45-47 How long until BCG is commonly suggested for or administered to
pregnant women there, and other advanced industrialized nations?
46
C. Final Thoughts
This study reviewed and then adapted that of Miller and Goldman. 1 I used a far larger
data set, and applied the statistical tests in a manner that comports with the demands and
assumptions of the statistical theories underlying those tests. Though I too recognize that the
ingredients in vaccines are largely responsible for increased rates of asthma and allergies, 48 auto-
immune diseases and childhood cancer, 49, 50 and even infant and child mortality, 51, 52 available
datasets, with sufficient normality, show that, at the national level, vaccines have no efficacy on
IMR. Importantly, regression and ANOVA show that, even when considering vaccine doses, per
capita GDP, as a surrogate measure for better access to clean water and nutritious food for both
mother and baby, has a statistically significantly, negative effect on IMR. But I imagine that
many of us already knew that.
47
Acknowledgements
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or
not-for-profit sectors.
All tables and charts were constructed by the author from information available in the public
domain.
48
References
1. Miller N and Goldman G. Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is
there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity? Human and Experimental Toxicology 2011, volume 30, number 9:
14201428.
2. Miller N. Vaccines: are they really safe and effective. Santa Fe, New Mexico: New Atlantean Press; 2008.
3. Lopez D. Tax Benefits Withheld by Australian Government from Parents with Unvaccinated Kids. 2012.
http://www.australiansforliberty.org/medical-tyranny/tax-benefits-withheld-by-australian-government-from-parents-
with-unvaccinated-kids.html (accessed December 2013).
4. In the United States, all but two States, Mississippi and West Virginia, allow non-medical exemptions for vaccine
requirements in relation to school attendance. Are Vaccines Really Mandatory?
http://www.bluelotusayurveda.com/vaccinations_legal.html (December 2013). Though a so-called medical
exemption exists in West Virginia statutory law, recent evidence shows that the statutory provision is a nullity. See
Workman v. Mingo (CA4 2011) available at http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/092352.U.pdf
5. Central Intelligence Agency (United States). World Factbook. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office;
2012.
6. See Shepard A, CIA Gets Numbers Wrong on Jewish Settlers. NPR, 2 June 2010.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2010/06/01/127349281/cia-gets-the-numbers-wrong.
7. See Jones J, notes on the F-test at https://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m170/ch13-f.html (accessed

December 2013)
8. UNICEF. Immunization Summary: a statistical reference containing data through 2010.

http://www.childinfo.org/files/immunization_summary_en.pdf (accessed August 2012).
9. MacDorman M and 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.
10. See a discussion of a 95% Confidence Interval at www.injuryobservatory.net/95_confidence.html. Those

authors claim that smaller confidence intervals are more stable confidence intervals.
11. Center for Disease Control. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Infant Mortality Rates 60 Largest U.S. Cities,
19951998. MMWR, April 19, 2002 / 51(15);329-332, 343; data taken from Table 1. Number and rate of infant
mortality by race/ethnicity 60 largest U.S. Cities 1995-1998.
12. Healey J. Statistics: a tool for social science research, 8th edition. Wadsworth Cengage Learning: Belmont, CA;
2009.
13. Ulm K. A simple method to calculate the confidence interval of a standardized mortality ratio. American
Journal of Epidemiology (1990), volume 131, issue 2:373-375
14. See data from the Andorran government at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Andorra, accessed
August 2012.
49
15. Fox News. Infanticide, Abortion Responsible for 60 Million Girls Missing in Asia. June 13, 2007.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/13/infanticide-abortion-responsible-for-60-million-girls-missing-in-asia/
(accessed November 2013).
16. See indexmundi.com, sourcing the CIA World Factbook to make 10-12 year graphs of IMR for individual
nations.
17. Berglas S, The 7 Habits of Wildly Successful Entrepreneurs. Forbes, 4 June 2012.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenberglas/2012/06/04/the-7-habits-of-wildly-successful-entrepreneurs/3/ (accessed
21 December 2013)
18. Geddes B, How the Cases You Choose Affect the Answers Your Get: Selection Bias in Comparative Politics.
Political Analysis 1990, 2(1): 131-150. http://www.nyu.edu/classes/nbeck/q2/geddes.pdf (accessed December 2013)
19. See the Wikipedia entry on regression and the subsection on the underlying assumptions of linear regression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis#Underlying_assumptions
20. Osborne J and Waters E. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test.
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 2002, volume 8, number 2. http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?
v=8&n=2. (accessed August 2012).
21. Lewis-Beck, M. Course lectures. University of Iowa, Iowa City 1995.
22. The Economist. Global poverty. A fall to cheer. For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining
everywhere. March 3, 2012.
23. King G, Keohane R, and Verba S. Designing Social Inquiry:

Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, 1994.
24. Wakefield A, et al. "Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental
disorder in children." The Lancet, Volume 351, Number 9103, 28 February 1998
25. McIntyre P and Leask J. Improving uptake of MMR vaccine. British Medical Journal, April 5, 2008; volume
336, issue 7647: 729730.
26. Nixon, R. Vaccination rates drop, putting more kids at risk. MSNBC, 21 November 2010.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40280560/ns/health-infectious_diseases/t/vaccination-rates-drop-putting-more-kids-
risk/#.UDWG27RreGB (accessed July 2013).
27. Contemporary Pediatrics. Measles outbreak blamed on lower vaccination rate. November 17, 2011.
http://contemporarypediatrics.modernmedicine.com/contpeds/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=749136 (accessed
September 2013).
28. Kleiber C and Zeileis A. Applied Econometrics. Springer, New York; 2008.
29. McLaughin, Margaret. Least Squares Regression and Multiple Regression. Source:
http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~mmclaugh/550x/PPTslides/WeekTenSlides/Regression.ppt (accessed July 2012)
30. Department of Health of Human Services (HHS). Healthy People 2010: Volume I. Understanding and
Improving Health. Washington, DC; 1998.
http://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/Document/tableofcontents.htm#volume1 (accessed July 2012)
50
31. Alli R (reviewer). Meningococcal Vaccine. WebMD, 2012. http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/meningococcal-

vaccine (accessed November 2013).
32. Merchant T. Aluminum-hydroxide in vaccines causes serious health problems. Idaho Observer, 6 December
2007. http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20071206.htm (accessed June 2012).
33. Ayoub D. Vaccines and Childhood Illnesses: Beyond Thimerosal. Presentation from the 65th Annual Meeting
of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Phoenix, Arizona, 12 September 2008. Online at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ny842FitF8 (accessed November 2013)
34. Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP). Aluminum in Vaccines: what should you know. Q&A, volume 3,
spring, 2009. http://www.chop.edu/export/download/pdfs/articles/vaccine-education-center/aluminum.pdf (accessed
August 2013).
35. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Vaccines, Blood & Biologics. 2012.
http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t1 (accessed December
2013).
36. Cassel, I. Aluminum Toxicity: A misdiagnosed epidemic (Part 1). Idaho Observer, 7 December 2007.
http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20071207.htm (accessed July 2012).
37. Struve, JoAnne. Signs of Aluminum Poisoning. (undated).

http://home.earthlink.net/~joannefstruve/_wsn/page3.html (accessedAugust 2012).
38. Arznei-Telegramm. Fatalities with Hexavalent Vaccines (Hexavac, Infanrix Hexa), (2003) volume 34: 56.
http://www.arznei-telegramm.de/journal/j0305_a.php3 (accessed January 2012).
39. World Health Organization. Biologicals: Oral polio vaccine (OPV). Undated.
http://www.who.int/biologicals/areas/vaccines/polio/opv/en/ (accessed December 2013).
40. See Resik S. Priming after a Fractional Dose of Inactivated Poliovirus Vaccine. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:416-
424, January 31. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202541
41. United States Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. The 2012 Statistical Abstract.: The National Data
Book. Table on Births, Deaths, Marriages, & Divorces. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 2012.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0078.pdf
42. Child Trends. Low and Very Low Birthweight Infants. 2012. Retrieved July 2013 from
www.childtrendsdatabank.org/alphalist?q=node/67
43. Rogers S. Interview with Joyce Riley, The Power Hour. October 3, 2011. www.thepowerhour.com
44. Rogers S. Interview with Joyce Riley, The Power Hour. August 15, 2011. www.thepowerhour.com
45. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Immunization and Pregnancy. (uploaded 2011; accessed July 2013)
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/downloads/f_preg_chart.pdf
46. Fox M. Doctors encouraged pregnant women to get flu shot. Reuters, 2 December 2010, Washington, DC.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/02/us-flu-vaccine-pregnancy-idUSTRE6B162K20101202
51
47. Myers C. Doctors: Get pertussis vaccine to prevent whooping cough. KTRK, Houston, ABC affiliate. August
22, 2012. http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=8783086
48. Fraser H. The History of the Peanut Allergy Epidemic. Toronto: CreateSpace publishers; 2010
49. Tenpenny S. The Truth about Flu Shots. August 2, 2009, reposted at: http://dprogram.net/2009/08/02/the-
truth-about-flu-shots-dr-sherri-tenpenny/
50. Blaylock R. The Role of Immunotoxicity in Aluminum and Mercury. Interview with Alex Jones, 2012. Online
at: http://experimentalvaccines.org/dr-russell-blaylock/
(accessed July 2013).
51. Null G. Vaccine Nation. Documentary film, 2008, available online at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=N7WwgnnHCsA (accessed July 2012).
52. Scheibner V. Shaken Baby Syndrome Diagnosis On Shaky Ground. Journal of Australasian College of
Nutritional & Environmental Medicine 2001, volume 20, number 2, August
53. Samuelson, D. CDC Whistleblower: We Were Ordered To Cover Up Vaccine-Autism Link. Vaccine News, 29
April 2016. http://www.vaccines.news/2016-04-29-cdc-whistleblower-we-were-ordered-to-cover-up-vaccine-
autism-link-video.html
52

Vaccines and Death: A Quantitative Analysis of Infant Mortality

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Vaccines and Death: A Quantitative Analysis of Infant Mortality

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Jones (2014), Vaccines and Death

Vaccines and Death: a quantitative

infant mortality rates, vaccines, regression, ANOVA, per capita GDP

Author contact information

John Calvin Jones, PhD, JD

I. Introduction: Clarifications and Questions

from the home.4 So, in a legal sense, there is no requirement.

incorrect in the CIA World Factbook.6

Goldman offer four conclusions about the numbers they calculated:

1. there is a strong, statistically significant, positive correlation (Pearsons r = 0.7) between

4. there is a statistically significant difference in the IMRs of those nations which

Ultimately the authors conclude:

These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require [sic]

capita income might influence national IMR.

II. Deconstructing Miller and Goldman1

A. Their Research Question, Assumptions, and Data

(28), Brazil (29), and Palau (29).8

researchers MacDorman and Mathews.9 They wrote:

States in the year 2009.1

highest, in Table 1 (below).

Instead, they proceeded to pare down the data set.

What did Miller and Goldman assume?

skew their results.

IMR instability [sic].1

(ii) given the meaning and purpose of generating a confidence interval.

improperly posited by Miller and Goldman as a reason to exclude Andorra, Monaco,

on regression assumptions below).

needlessly, constructed skewed numbers.

Miller and Goldman did not), our estimates will be biased.

Chart I. Estimate of Confidence Intervals

the SEE for a proportion = (t-critical value) * (p*q/N);

Chart II. confidence intervals for a proportion using

therefore, LL = 1.4 / (2 * 850) = 0.00082353

therefore, UL = 18.1 / (2 * 850) = 0.01064706

Ulms13 method constructs a 95% confidence interval of 0.000823 X 0.01065. Based

Reconsidering the CIA data

particular countries which were excluded by Miller and Goldman. 1

Table 2. IMR of the four nations excluded by Miller and Goldman

deaths. See Chart III (below).

Chart III. How Many Andorran Babies Died in 2009

X / 850 = 3.76 / 1,000;

statistical inferences questionable.

the CIA might be unreliable.

WB, or other data collators?

keeping, or faulty data storage systems?

possible. See Table 3.

IMR (1.6 in 2010), the CIA assumes a mere 1% annual drop.

infanticide)15 reduced its IMR by 20% between 2009 and 2010.

that lie between a few verified data points.

told, despite a the nation being ripped apart by a civil war.

has some factual errors and systematic biases.1 They write:

Statistical determinations of Miller and Goldman

Then the authors performed three statistical tests:

Here is what they reported for these tests:

interval, except for the sake of repetition.

difference in the variances in national IMR based on vaccine recommendations or administration.

B. Samples and their Distributions Affect Statistical Tests

that had reliability issues and was inexplicably atheoretical.

the selected cases.18, 23

was an extreme outlier and skewed their results.

III. Improved Method and Justification

A. The Need to Develop a Global Dataset looking at IMR and more

validity of the quantitative analysis of Miller and Goldman. 1