Vaccine advocates – although propagandists would be a more accurate term – often correctly claim that there is no scientific evidence proving that vaccines have ever killed anyone or caused autism. Therefore, they claim vaccines can be considered the cause of nothing but a cure for cancer, an end to war and the elimination of all human disease except that caused by dirty, unvaccinated children who are homeschooled by religious bigots. To even consider the mere possibility of questioning the intrinsic and perfect goodness of vaccines, any vaccine given for any reason, is to be not only anti-science, but personally responsible for murdering anyone who died of a disease that would have been prevented by vaccination.

Lest you think I'm exaggerating, please note that there is a site called "The Jenny McCarthy Bodycount," which claims that the blonde actress is responsible for 888 deaths since June 3, 2007, which makes her the second most lethal American after Chuck Norris.

The reason that the vaccine propagandist claim is correct is because there is also no scientific evidence that vaccines have not killed anyone or caused autism, because there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence on the matter. Most of the "science" in the studies that are widely cited by those who insist that vaccines are safe are simply statistical reviews, which involve as much use of actual science as polling former Playboy models. In the very few cases where an actual scientific experiment has been performed, the populations compared have not been between a vaccinated group and an unvaccinated control group, but rather two different groups that are both vaccinated to varying degrees.

The vaccine propagandists defend the failure of scientists to gather scientific evidence by begging the question. They insist that it would be unethical to permit a control group of children to go without vaccination, due to their assumption that the risks of vaccination are significantly outweighed by the dangers of the diseases vaccinated against. Thus, they perpetuate ignorance on the actual safety or danger of the current U.S. vaccine schedule.

However, a review of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System shows a way that proper science could help clarify the matter without a single child needing to go unvaccinated. Even though statistical analysis is not science, this does not mean it cannot provide enough useful information to permit the formulation of a hypothesis that can be subsequently tested through experiment; this is the correct way to use statistics, in support of science rather than in lieu of it.

TRENDING: With only days to go until debate, Pelosi gives Biden an out: 'Why bother?'

The first statistical clue is that despite a much higher number of reported adverse vaccine events between the ages of 1-3 and 6-18 years, more of those events are fatalities among the younger than six months and 65+ years populations. Given the weaker constitutions of the very young and the very old, this provides us with the first clue that any vaccine danger may be in some way tied to the physical state of the individual receiving the vaccine. And while these are very broad population segments, we are fortunate in that the VAERS system permits the analysis of a more detailed breakdown of ages, as can be seen in the following chart, which shows fatalities broken down by the age in months of the child suffering the fatal adverse event.

These fatal adverse events are happening to children of a very specific age. More than one-third of all reported vaccine-related deaths, nearly 40 percent, occurred between the ages of two and four months, which just happens to be precisely when the vaccine schedule calls for children to receive no less than 10 shots, including 2xRV, 2xDTaP, 2xHib, 2xPCV and 2xIPV. They may also receive an 11th shot, for Hepatitis B, as well.

Now, it is true that VAERS is not an entirely reliable system. It is estimated that between 90 percent and 99 percent of all vaccine-related events go unreported. Because we are looking at such a small snapshot of the total number of events, it is possible that the statistically obvious death spike would disappear with a more reliable reporting system. However, there is an additional clue, because there is an additional statistical death spike that just happens to take place among children of precisely the same age, between two and four months.

That is deaths by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, which is simply the medical term for "the baby died and no one knows why." SIDS deaths have been reduced over the years by the sleeping position campaign – put them on their back, not their stomach – and by improved reporting that has increasingly identified asphyxiation deaths. But the problem persists, as does the mysterious SIDS death spike that just happens to take place at precisely the same age as the VAERS death spike and the vaccine spike in the U.S. vaccine schedule. Are these three statistical spikes necessarily related? No, but there is more than enough statistical correlation to indicate that some degree of causation is involved.

(Note to vaccine propagandists: Don't bother attempting to cite the study reporting that vaccines actually reduce SIDS deaths. I've read it, and as one has learned to expect of these studies, they were comparing a vaccinated group to a vaccinated control group as the original purpose of the experiment was to test the safety of an additional new vaccine, not the safety of vaccines in general, much less the entire vaccine schedule.)

So, how can the lethality of the vaccine schedule be at least partially tested without requiring an unvaccinated control group? The answer is based on the charts above. By simply dividing the vaccinated children into four groups and then shifting the entire vaccine schedule back three months, six months and one year, then observing if the two 2-4 month SIDS and VAERS death spikes either shift back in parallel with each group or disappear, we would obtain valuable information concerning the danger of the current vaccine schedule.

If the death spikes shift back in parallel with the delayed administration, we would be able to conclude that the vaccines being given are simply too lethal when combined according to the current schedule. If the death spikes subside with increased age, as I suspect would be the case, we would be able to conclude that the problem stems from the combined vaccines overwhelming some of the smaller bodies and weaker constitutions of the children between two and four months. If this is the case, simply moving the vaccine schedule back a few months, perhaps even as much as a year, would save the lives of between 1,000 and 10,000 American children every single year, to say nothing of the non-lethal adverse effects it would also mitigate, if not necessarily eliminate entirely.

Of course, it would be better and more scientifically responsible to include a fifth, unvaccinated control group. But if that is not possible, given the financial concerns of the pharmaceutical lobby and the ethical concerns of the vaccine advocates, at least this proposed experiment would provide credible scientific evidence and offer the potential to save children's lives without violating any of those concerns.