The authors, and others who quote such bottomless 'statistics', make a huge assumption in order to arrive at their estimation that vaccines prevented 103.1 million cases of contagious diseases since 1924. The only way they could fabricate this number and, therefore, spin their agenda to the world, is to assume that vaccines were solely responsible for the differences in incidence rates of infectious diseases before and after vaccine licensure.
Proving this assumption as fact is next to impossible. Nevertheless, the conclusion drawn by these authors will be used by mass media, medical groups, vaccine manufacturers, and government agencies, to exaggerate the benefits of vaccinations as the only reason such massive numbers of infectious diseases never happened. People will never see or read the fine print and know that the conclusions were based on a reckless assumption.
We know the life cycle of bacteria and viruses is impacted by vaccinations, but vaccines do not impact their existence. Yet, we are made to believe that vaccinations make micro-organisms like small pox, measles, polio, diphtheria and rubella somehow vanish off the face of the earth. No, their existences have not been eradicated.
Vaccinations don't, and can't, make these organisms dissolve into thin air. Just because we see fewer diseases caused by these organisms doesn't mean the micro-organisms themselves are no longer in existence. The assumption that vaccines work by eradicating the very existence of the bacteria and viruses against which we vaccinate is yet another, in a long line of reckless assumptions, that drives the vaccination program forward.
And, we know that the relative opportunities for infectious diseases to occur are impacted by the presence or absence of factors other than vaccination rates. These factors include diet, nutritional status, famine, toxic load, genetics, host susceptibility, hygiene, individual and community-wide stress levels, psychological status, natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, & tornados, war, peace, poverty, clean water, proper waste disposal, oppression, and overall living conditions.
We also cannot ignore the fact that there are environmental forces, independent of the human element, which may impact bacterial and viral activity, replication, and infectivity. This is a topic that is never considered. We never even stop to consider that just as the rhythms & physiology of humans, animals and plants are impacted by the above-mentioned environmental factors, micro-organisms have life cycles all their own that are influenced by these same environmental factors.
Hard for species-centric humans to realize that human choices may not be all of what impacts the life and times of bacteria and viruses. Even such non-human determined factors as changes in the time of year, time of day, seasons, times of the month, and ambient temperatures, can impact bacterial and viral activities. Even the activity levels of certain bacteria and viruses can impact the activity levels of other bacteria and viruses via forces of nature, independent of human knowledge or influence. Yes, there are factors other than human contagiousness and vaccination rates that may affect how, where, and why bacteria and viruses behave the way they do.
Nonetheless, despite this broader, more realistic, and more scientific exploration of the factors that impact how infectious diseases may occur, scientific discourse about how we may understand the complexities of what contributes to infectious disease outbreaks, and how we can strive to better prevent morbidity and mortality when they do occur, will remain the following: vaccines are solely responsible for preventing more massive incidences of infectious diseases.
I'd say it's mighty bold, bordering on dangerous magical and mythical thinking, for the authors to make this assumption, and then use it to propagate their agenda to potentially enforce further vaccination mandates.
We could try to do a similar analysis regarding chronic illness, and be just as reckless, although I wonder how much closer to the truth this analysis would be, as compared to the author's analysis. Here's my proposal, adhering to their model of spatiotemporal analysis, and copying their language from the article.
"Assuming that the difference rates before and after vaccine licensure was attributable solely to the vaccination programs, researchers estimate that vaccines contributed to (fill in the blank) million/trillion cases of chronic, debilitating inflammatory immune & neurological diseases, and deaths, since 1924. Anyone want to do the mathematical analysis?
I wonder how well, "high-resolution spatiotemporal data can be effectively used to illustrate these trends at national and local levels, and to inform public opinion about the dangers of the vaccination program," this author writes. After all, there is a dark side to every light side, isn't there?
Dr Palevsky's Comments: 
