Sunday, July 31, 2011

More Proof That Vaccines Save Lives

Like most vaccine conspiracy theorists, Lowell Hubbs is often quick to explain that he doesn't believe vaccines actually work.  When shown evidence that the rate of polio essentially fell off of a cliff upon the release of the polio vaccine, Mr. Hubbs tries to suggest it was all a sham and merely due to improved hygiene rather than the result of a vaccination.  When shown evidence outlining the eradication of smallpox via vaccination programs, Mr. Hubbs claims it was a coincidence.  Not only does Mr. Hubbs not believe these vaccines actually work, but he also believes they cause autism even though there has not been a single peer-reviewed published study that has been able to even suggest a link between the two, nor has there been any scientific evidence to suggest it.

So along comes a new study published in Pediatrics (The Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics) which discusses varicella (chickenpox) and the impact the vaccine had upon the varicella mortality rate. The result was a 88% reduction in the mortality rate for varicella since the vaccination was implemented (see page 216 of the full study).  In fact, varicella deaths actually decreased in every single age group including a whopping 97% reduction in deaths for children and adolescents under 20 years old.  Previous studies have also found significant reductions at a time the vaccination rate was on the rise, but this newer study is much more complete as it looks at a longer time frame and examines data from both the pre-vaccination period as well as 12 years after the vaccination was released.

Perhaps even more amazing was the fact these results reflect only one dosage of the vaccine.  The newer recommendations include a two dose program which could all but eliminate varicella related deaths within the vaccinated populace.  It is also important to consider the amount of people who no longer suffer from varicella (according to earlier studies an approximate reduction of 90% was witnessed in the first 10 years of vaccination), as well as the number of people who no longer need to be hospitalized as a result of varicella (previous studies found hospitalizations declined between 65% and 88% after implementation of the vaccine). 

If you factor in the amount of lost productivity due to people being ill and unable to attend work or school coupled with the healthcare costs of treatment, hospitalizations, and complications to other medical conditions it is clear the vaccine program is not only effective, but it is nothing short of amazing.

So if vaccines really don't work, are we to believe these reductions are nothing more than a series of coincidences?  Could it be that there is a varicella fairy that has simply been taking a vacation?  Is the reduction of varicella cases directly tied to the proliferation of Twitter accounts?  Not likely.  The only reasonable answer to be taken from all of this is that quite simply... vaccines work.  The science proves it, the results prove it, and study after study, research scientist after research scientist prove it time and time again.

If you're keeping score at home, here are the vital statistics:

Varicella related deaths* per year (1990-1994) prior to the vaccine being released: ~145
Varicella related deaths* in 2007 (the last year covered under this study): ~33

Number of children diagnosed with autism as a direct result of vaccination programs: 0

*Includes varicella as the underlying cause as well as varicella as a contributing cause.  Figures are taken from Table 1 on page 216 of the study.

Sure seems like vaccines are worth the risk to me... but then again I'm not a vaccine conspiracy theorist like Mr. Hubbs.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

Could a Lack of Vitamin D Lead to a Higher Risk of Autism?

I came across a very interesting article surrounding vitamin D.  Although the basic premise of the article was that humans aren't getting enough vitamin D, it goes on to discuss a potential link between a lack of vitamin D and autism.  Specifically, the following paragraphs caught my eye and I felt they were worth sharing:
"Many researchers now fear that the explosive increase in autism is a result of pregnant mothers having close to no vitamin D in their bodies and then young babies and infants being similarly shielded from the Sun. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says that virtually no infants are getting enough vitamin D. The inadequacy figures, even using the CDC's pre-2011 lower recommendations of what they thought the body should have, was that 90 percent of infants are deficient.

According to Cannell, the highest autism rates occur in areas that have the most clouds and rain, and hence the lowest blood levels of vitamin D. A Swedish study has strongly linked sunlight deprivation with autism. Moreover, blacks, whose vitamin D levels are half those found in whites living at the same latitudes, have twice the autism rates. Conversely, autism is virtually unknown in places such as sunny Somalia, where most people still spend most of their time outdoors. Yet another piece of anecdotal evidence is that autism is one of the very few afflictions that occur at higher rates among the wealthier and more educated - exactly the people most likely to be diligent about sunscreen and more inclined to keep their children indoors."
The full article can be found here.

The author ensure he states this is anecdotal evidence, and nobody is attempting to present this as peer-reviewed science here, but clearly there is a need to continue to research this to determine if there is any merit.  There has been some science which has been published regarding the rates of autism in various geographical areas and how areas with more clouds and rain tend to have higher rates, so perhaps there is something to this. 

We obviously won't see scientists running out claiming that a lack of vitamin D causes autism anytime soon, because that isn't how real science works.  That said, I would not be surprised to see studies that pursue this hypothesis even further than the existing research that has been published thus far.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that such studies are already underway.

I do question what the antivaxer response would be to this theory however as it somewhat puts them in a difficult position.  Most antivaxers are not only against any and all vaccinations, but they are typically very, very pro-nutritional supplement.  Since they commonly promote various supplements as being able to treat and/or cure practically anything that ails the human body, I'm sure some of them would just love to start selling massive new name brand formularies of a common vitamin D supplement.  In fact - some of them already have (albeit with a MASSIVE amount of asterisks informing you their claims have not been evaluated by the FDA etc).

I'm not going to suggest taking a vitamin D supplement is a bad thing by any means, but for those who have a climate that allows, it goes without saying that the best way to get vitamin D is through natural sunlight.  In colder climates taking a supplement may be necessary in the winter months etc, but when possible it is always better to take advantage of mother nature not only because it is more efficient, but because it is free... and no matter what the economy is doing, free is always a good thing.

As to Mr. Hubbs, he is convinced vaccines cause autism, so he apparently will ignore any such theory which goes against the idea, which suggests in this case he will doubt the power of vitamin D.  Of course Mr. Hubbs has tried to blame autism on thimerosal in the past (a theory which has been entirely discredited) and he has attempted to blame autism on the MMR vaccine (another theory which has been entirely discredited), so if we have learned anything about Mr. Hubbs it is that he will ignore science at every turn in order to hold on to a scientifically unsupportable position. 

If the growing mountains of evidence are any indication of what the future holds in terms of determining the root cause of autism, the next few years will not be kind to Mr. Hubbs and his fellow antivaxers.  That being said, if someone is really concerned about their children being diagnosed with autism they would be a lot better off by giving their child a vitamin D supplement than they would by trying to skip a vaccine or two if for no other reason than we know what a lack of vaccines can result in, and nobody has ever blamed vitamin D for millions of deaths each and every year.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Destroying the "MMR Vaccine Causes Autism" Myth

In 1998, a unethical doctor named Andrew Wakefield published a study which suggested the MMR vaccine may be responsible for autism.  This claim came from his observations of a whopping 12 children.  Not 12,000, not 1,200, not even 120... but 12 children. 

Wakefield didn't come right out and claim the MMR vaccine was entirely responsible for autism, nor did he claim the vaccine was the only thing responsible, but he instilled enough fear about the vaccine in parents that vaccination rates plummeted as a direct result.  In parts of the UK, at one point only 60% of the children had received both doses of the MMR vaccine which lead to outbreaks of the measles to the point of it becoming an epidemic.  Children were hospitalized as a result, and there were even some deaths.

Granted Wakefield's "study" was originally published in a reputable medical journal (the Lancet) so people assumed it was at least factual.  With time however, people soon discovered that Wakefield acted unethically when he performed his research.  He manipulated and fabricated patient records.  He paid children to give him blood samples.  He left out key information that would have countered his claims, and he failed to mention that he had collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from trial lawyers for testifying against vaccine manufacturers (a blatant conflict of interest that he never disclosed).

As Brian Deer from the UK's The Sunday Times reported:
However, our investigation, confirmed by evidence presented to the General Medical Council (GMC), reveals that: In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated. Hospital pathologists, looking for inflammatory bowel disease, reported in the majority of cases that the gut was normal. This was then reviewed and the Lancet paper showed them as abnormal.
Eventually Wakefield's dishonesty and unethical behavior did in fact catch up with him, and ten of the original thirteen co-authors of the original study formally retracted their names from it.  Eventually the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that his license to practice medicine be revoked, which it subsequently was.  His original study was retracted from the very journal that had originally published it, he was forced out of the organization he was working for here in the US, and his follow-up study where he attempted to blame autism in animals on vaccines was also withdrawn.

However, even after all of this to some degree the damage has been done.  In some areas vaccine rates still not not risen to the levels they were prior to Wakefield's fraud being published, and of course we have seen a number of celebrities and reporters bring this issue to the surface which only serves to spread fear to parents who are ignorant of the facts and/or don't have time to learn the full story.  Although vaccination rates are once again on the rise, we continue to see the "MMR vaccine causes autism" myth repeated from time to time just as we continue to hear from Wakefield sympathizers (like Mr. Hubbs) who claim the entire ordeal was some massive conspiracy to unfairly target a man who dared challenge 'the medical system'.

Interestingly enough, I stumbled across a study published in The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry entitled "No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study".  This study (an actual peer-reviewed study published in a reputable journal mind you) examined the incidence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) in Japanese children who were born between 1988 and 1996 to determine if the incidence of ASD would rise after the MMR vaccine was no longer being administered (Japan stopped using the MMR vaccine in 1992).

The end result of the study was that although usage of the MMR vaccine had been falling for several years (and eventually was no longer administered) the incidence of ASD continued to rise.  The incidence of ASD ranged from 47.6 to 85.9 cases per 10,000 children before the vaccine was withdrawn to 96.7 to 161.3 per 10,000 after it was withdrawn. A very similar pattern was witnessed for children diagnosed as having ASD with episodes of definite regression.  This is the form of ASD where the child appears to develop normally up to a specific age and then appears to regress (which is the very same form of ASD that Wakefield attempted to blame upon the MMR vaccine).

In needs to be stated that the authors of this study did not suggest the rise in the incidence of ASD was in any way related to the removal of the MMR vaccine and that was not the purpose of the study.  However, the results of the study did openly state that countries that withdraw the MMR vaccine cannot be expected to witness a reduction in the incidence of ASD as so many antivaxxers would like to believe.

Therefore, if autism isn't caused by the MMR vaccine (and the antivaxxers know the science has discredited that idea) and if autism isn't caused by thimerosal (as the removal of thimerosal from childhood vaccines has not resulted in any decrease in the incidence of ASD) what are we left to believe?  The antivaxxers such as Mr. Hubbs continue to see their theories debunked by sound science, so instead of acknowledging the science or admitting that their conclusions may have actually been wrong, they simply retreat and pretend that nothing ever happened.  They will then come out with yet another theory as they try to move the goalposts without anyone noticing. 

One thing is for sure... momentum is not on the side of the antivaxxers, and with so much science stacking up against them they have done the only thing possible - they have started speaking in such incredibly general terms that it makes it much more difficult to challenge them (albeit much more difficult for them to be taken seriously as well).  In the past they had focused upon the MMR vaccine or upon thimerosal or upon aluminum... but when science shows none of those have any statistical weight upon the incidence of ASD, they have now shifted to making unsubstantiated claims about various unnamed "toxins" in vaccines or in the body, and they are now attempting to claim that ASD isn't caused by a specific vaccine alone or even by a number of vaccines, but merely that it is 'triggered' by the sheer volume of vaccines given to children.
In 2012 and beyond we can expect to see a new round of antivaxxer hypocrisy as they develop new and improved "detoxification" techniques and products that will claim to improve health and magically cure autism or other conditions caused by these mystery toxins, yet don't expect to see any peer-reviewed science supporting these claims as it won't be available.  The only question that remains is... how much longer will the scientifically ignorant wing of the public continue to trust a group which changes their point of focus more often than Harold Camping and his Rapture predictions?

Sunday, July 10, 2011

Vaccinating for Whooping Cough: Life Saving Advice

An article published a few days ago discusses how there has been a trend of whooping cough in the Seattle area.  The original article can be found here.

One key fact pointed out is how the Seattle area has a rate of 136 infections for every 100,000 infants whereas among the entire US the rate is 97 infections for every 100,000 infants.  A report published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine included a retrospective analysis of infected infants in the Seattle area from 2002 through 2007 and they found the primary cause was exposure from a family member who was not fully vaccinated and thus could spread the disease to others.

As the article states, in the study of the babies who came down with whooping cough, "the researchers found that nearly half the people who lived or worked with the babies were eligible to receive a vaccine that would have protected them". 

The article also mentions that whooping cough (which is also known as pertussis) "causes uncontrollable, violent coughing, infects 30 to 50 million people a year globally and kills about 300,000, mostly children in developing countries".

So ask yourself - how many children would die in the US each year if Mr. Hubbs had his way and all vaccinations were eliminated?  Would 20 dead children be considered acceptable?  How about 100?  Would 1000 dead children be ok as long as the antivaxxers like Mr. Hubbs were happy?

That may seem like it is dramatization, however the article states that the problem with whooping cough infections "may be getting worse because some parents have been reluctant to vaccinate their children -- and the more unimmunized people there are in a community, the more likely there are to be outbreaks. One recent whooping cough outbreak in California has affected more than 6,400 people and killed at least 10 infants".

Obviously even with widespread vaccine usage there is no guarantee that every infant will be protected because no vaccine has 100% success rate in preventing the spread of a disease, but obviously the risk would be much less if more adults received the recommended vaccinations to prevent passing the disease onto the infants.  The reality is most infants who contract pertussis are not old enough to have received the full schedule of vaccinations and therefore rely upon the adults around them being vaccinated in order to reduce the risk of spreading the disease.

Obviously an antivaxxer such as Mr. Hubbs would say those babies would be better off without anyone being vaccinated, but that begs the question... are we really willing to deal with the ramifications of an unprotected populace simply to appease some antivaxxers who seem to believe vaccinations cause autism even when they don't have one single peer-reviewed scientific study to support that belief?  How many more children must suffer the complications of a disease like whooping cough - or worse, how many more children must die before antivaxxers realize how harmful their opinions really are?

It is clear there are those people on this earth who really have a sincere desire to protect children and those are the doctors and nurses and support staff who are out there doing their best to ensure each and every child is protected via vaccinations.  Then there are those people like Mr. Hubbs as his fellow antivaxxer friends who proclaim to care about children, but in reality do everything in their power to ensure those children continue to suffer from preventable disease all in the name of avoiding what they perceive as harmful.

Thankfully the antivaxxer movement has been losing ground the past few years and vaccination rates are on the rise. There is still work to be done, but luckily the situation seems to be improving year after year.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

More Evidence That Autism Caused by Genetic and Environmental Factors

One more piece...
Earlier today an article was published entitled "Environment, not just genetics, at play in autism".  The article discusses two different studies which were recently published in the Archives of General Psychiatry which both found various environmental risk factors which could result in a child being born with autism.

In one of the studies, a significant risk was identified if the mother took a specific anti-depressant during pregnancy.  In the other, it was determined that fraternal twins were at a much higher risk of developing autism than children who have a sibling with autism.  This is not meant to suggest that genetics isn't a significant role however.  In fact, Clara Lajonchere, a co-author of one of the studies as well as the vice president of clinical programs for Autism Speaks stated that "[i]t has been well-established that genetic factors contribute to risk for autism".

Rather than dismissing the genetic component, these new studies are merely suggesting there might be a combination of genetic as well as environmental factors that lead to autism.  Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health was quoted as saying "[w]hat is becoming clear, he said, is that the [environmental] exposure is likely occurring before childbirth."

Therefore the authors of these studies are examining things such as chemical exposure, to infections, to genetics however since the data has suggested the triggers are occurring before childbirth, it would be rather difficult to blame autism upon vaccines which are given after childbirth.

Read the full story here:

And here are the studies:
Genetic Heritability and Shared Environmental Factors Among Twin Pairs With Autism
Arch Gen Psychiatry. Published online July 4, 2011. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.76
Antidepressant Use During Pregnancy and Childhood Autism Spectrum Disorders
Arch Gen Psychiatry. Published online July 4, 2011. doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.73

So while we have more and more studies piling up which continue to identify various risk factors that may contribute to autism, we continue to have a total of zero studies which have identified vaccines as one of those risk factors.  Unless of course you count the now-retracted and fraudulent Wakefield study (which technically isn't even a published study since it has been pulled due to the numerous ethical and scientific issues with the 'study').

We also need to note that in some cases these studies are financed by insurance companies (the antidepressant study above was financed by Kaiser Permanente), therefore these organizations have nothing to gain by hiding the true cause of autism.  In fact, an insurance company would obviously benefit financially if such a root cause could be identified as it would decrease the amount of payouts and therefore improve the bottom line of the insurer.

The only question remaining is, how many more studies will it take before an antivaxxer like Mr. Hubbs admits that vaccines are not the root cause of autism?  Put another way, how many more times will the scientific and medical community release a study which make Mr. Hubbs and his fellow antivaxxers look foolish? 

Time will tell.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Vaccines and SIDS

I recently wrote a post about vaccines and infant mortality, and as you may expect, Mr. Hubbs didn't appreciate data and statistics that serve to destroy his misheld beliefs.  As a result, Mr. Hubbs tried to direct me to an opinion piece to claim vaccines actually cause higher rates of infant mortality along with him rambling on about SIDS (as he has done so often in the past). Unfortunately, Mr. Hubbs once again displays the fact that he fails to understand correlation does not equal causation.

His source attempts to mirror rates of infant mortality with the nations that vaccinate, however vaccination rates don't tell the whole story, and you need to understand the context and underlying causes for higher rates of mortality before making a unsupportable claim about causation.  If one was to look at the rates of infant mortality, they would soon find out the rates are dramatically different among various races, and because the US is a very diverse nation, our statistics bear this out.

For example, the infant mortality rate per 1000 live births for non-hispanic whites in the US is 5.7, whereas for blacks it is a disproportional 13.6.  The rates for children of Cuban, Central American, or Asian ancestry are lower than those of whites while Native American children were higher than average.  Therefore as you can see there is a huge disparity between races within our very own nation even though we don't have different vaccination schedules based upon race.  This all suggests a strong genetic component coupled with other societal factors (income, access to medical care, geography, cultural variances etc, etc) that tend to differ among races.

Therefore if you were to compare the infant mortality rate of a nation that is much less diverse (lets use Japan as an example) to the infant mortality rate of only the Asian or Pacific Islander population of the US, you would find those rates are nearly identical (5 vs. 4.89).  Obviously the US doesn't use one vaccination schedule for white children, another for black children, yet another for Asian children etc, so in order to really understand why our infant mortality rate as a whole is higher than some other nations, we need to dig deeper.

The reality is the industrialized nations that tend to have lower infant mortality rates than the US vaccinate their children too, so it is a rather disingenuous to suggest it has anything to do with vaccines when the data itself doesn't bear that out.  You can look at a chart that compares the various rates of infant mortality amongst nations and clearly see those nations with the lowest rates are the very same nations that vaccinate (primarily nations throughout Europe and Asia), while the nations with the highest rates of infant mortality have historically struggled to provide vaccinations to their populations (many nations from Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America).  The data doesn't lie, but some people do try to misinterpret it and cherry pick facts to support their predetermined viewpoints.  Go figure.

If we are speaking about SIDS specifically it is also important to note that the Netherlands has the lowest reported rate of SIDS (0.56 SIDS deaths for 1000 live births). In comparison New Zealand had a reported rate of 2.9 and the US has 1.3.  So since the US has one of the most rigorous vaccination schedules, and if vaccines are really the root cause of SIDS, shouldn't we have a higher rate than a country like New Zealand or Ireland (2.2 SIDS deaths per 1000 live births)?

One interesting point to be noted is that the rate of SIDS in the US has decreased by 50% since 1990, yet as any good anti-vaxxer like Mr. Hubbs will tell you, we are using more vaccines than ever.  So if vaccines really caused SIDS, how does an anti-vaxxer explain the reduction in SIDS deaths?  As you can see, once again the anti-vaxxers just choose to ignore the data that doesn't support their viewpoints because they have no logical way to explain it away.

I should also mention that the Immunization Safety Review Committee was established by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to evaluate the evidence of possible causal associations between immunizations and certain adverse outcomes.  The Committee concluded that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between these vaccines and sudden infant death syndrome, sudden unexpected death in infancy, or neonatal death.  I suppose the IOM is in on some vast conspiracy too though... so I suppose they aren't a trustworthy source when compared to a bastion of knowledge such as (sarcasm intended).

Obviously the evidence, as well as the scientific community at large, overwhelming disagrees with the anti-vaxxer viewpoint that vaccines cause SIDS or lead to higher infant mortality, but that doesn't stop the anti-vaxxers from continuing to push their ignorance onto others while displaying their inability to understand and comprehend detailed data.

I especially liked that the article Mr. Hubbs cited claimed "SIDS [...] was relatively unknown prior to the 1960s when national immunization programs were initiated". Yea... sure thing.  The reality is, the term 'SIDS' may be fairly new, but the condition is not. In decades past it was commonly referred to as crib death, cot death, or overlaying and often times such a death was blamed upon other conditions such as smallpox, diphtheria, or whooping cough if a child was suffering from one of those conditions and died in his or her sleep.

In time as vaccines were developed to prevent infants from succumbing to these preventable diseases, it became clear there was another cause, and in 1969 the term "SIDS" was first used to describe the condition.  It wasn't until 1973 that a separate cause-of-death category to distinguish deaths due to SIDS was added.  As this Trends in Infant Mortality by Cause of Death and Other Characteristics report from the US Department of Health and Human Services explains (page 15):  "Before 1973 there was no separate category for SIDS, and many SIDS deaths were probably classified under other category numbers in the “Symptoms, Signs, and 111-Defined Conditions” chapter of the ICD, as well as under respiratory conditions, Accidental mechanical suffocation (ICDA–8 No. E913), and a variety of other causes (30-32)".

In 1990 the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) defined SIDS as “the sudden death of an infant under one year of age which remains unexplained after a thorough case investigation, including performance of a complete autopsy, examination of the death scene, and review of the clinical history”.

Therefore if you were to look at vital statistics report from 1950 for instance, you aren't going to see a separate category for SIDS, because the acronym "SIDS" hadn't yet been invented.  Does that mean that infants weren't dying from unknown causes while they slept?  Not at all.  It merely means those deaths were classified under other categories because there wasn't a clear way to identify them yet.

Based upon Mr. Hubbs' logic, one could claim there was no such thing as Lou Gehrig's disease until 1939 when Lou Gehrig himself was diagnosed with it.  Never mind that the disease was officially called Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and had been known since the 1800s... I guess the condition doesn't count until it has an official modern name.

However, back in the real world Mr. Hubbs may be interested to know that such unexplained infant deaths have been occurring long before vaccines were ever introduced.  In fact, if he was to reference the Old Testament in the Bible, (1 Kings 3:19) he would realize even in biblical times people were blaming unexpected deaths upon people rolling over on their children - which was considered to be a leading cause for many decades.  That is exactly why the term "overlaying" was used to explain it as doctors and medical examiners simply assumed it was due to a parent rolling over and suffocating the child inadvertently.

However, as time progressed and medical advances allowed us to examine the infant to determine the true cause of death, it was determined it wasn't as simple as suffocation and the issue is much more complex.  In fact even today experts openly admit SIDS has no single cause, however they also agree that it is not caused by bad parenting nor is it caused by vaccines.  Of all of the risk factors associated with SIDS, vaccines have not been identified as being one of them in any study thus far.  In fact, according to the CDC study, there was actually a decrease in the risk of SIDS after infants had received the DPT vaccine.  I suppose the CDC is in on this vast conspiracy too though... so they can't be trusted (again... sarcasm intended).

Then again, we need to keep in mind that Mr. Hubbs doesn't actually believe SIDS even exists in the first place.  Rather, Mr. Hubbs believes SIDS is just a condition invented to cover up for vaccine damaged children. 

Case in point:

"There is no such thing as SIDS" ~Lowell Kevin Hubbs
However, if there really is no such thing as SIDS how do you explain SIDS deaths in non-vaccinated kids? Here are a few studies that have focused on SIDS - none of which have found a statistical difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated infants:

Jonville-Bera AP, Autret E, Laugier J. Sudden infant death syndrome and diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis-poliomyelitis vaccination status. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 1995;9(3):263-70.

Carvajal A, et al. [DTP vaccine and infant sudden death syndrome. Meta-analysis] Med Clin (Barc) 1996 May 4;106(17):649-52.

Mitchell EA, Stewart AW, Clements M. Immunisation and the sudden infant death syndrome. New Zealand Cot Death Study Group. Arch Dis Child 1995 Dec;73(6):498-501.

I really don't expect Mr. Hubbs to be able to explain these studies - in fact I'm quite sure they are far beyond his reading comprehension level.  Even if he did take the time to actually review them he would soon find out they disagree with his viewpoints, which is why (as always) Mr. Hubbs will just simply choose to ignore the science and the data as he continues his quest to make the world a dumber place.  He will then attempt to change the subject to some other topic such as random 'toxins' in vaccines or he will return to his pattern of accusing someone of hacking his computer or hiring a hitman to silence him.

So at this point one has to wonder if Mr. Hubbs actually cares about these children or if he is just looking for another excuse to point fingers at the pharmaceutical industry and/or the federal government.  Rest assured if there was any doubt in your mind, it can be put to rest once you read the following quotes from Mr. Hubbs in relation to shaken baby syndrome:
"Many infants who suffer so-called 'shaken baby syndrome' may be victims of undiagnosed vaccine damage."  ~Lowell Kevin Hubbs
"[T]here are alleged to be close to 3000 people sitting in prisons falsely accused of shaken baby syndrome, your vaccines have caused."  ~Lowell Kevin Hubbs
So basically Mr. Hubbs would rather assume vaccines are responsible for killing infants rather than the people who actually violently shake them to the point of death.  Then again this is the same guy who was caught driving drunk no less than four times (and likely got away with it hundreds of other times) so clearly he is just fine with putting the lives of innocent people at risk.  Instead of actually placing blame upon criminals, Mr. Hubbs would rather pretend they are innocent and that the judicial system is a mockery.

Stay classy Mr. Hubbs.