Thanks for you extremely insightful article. I was digging into the measles outbreak of 2018 where the WHO claims there were 142,000 people who died of measles, mostly in Africa, but even tallying up the available numbers from each of these small countries there is nowhere near 142k. Are the WHO completely lying and making up deaths that don't exist for their fearmonger campaign? Please look into these claims I am very curious.
The original study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which falsely claimed a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism, has not been replicated, and it is completely reckless and a bold-faced lie to say otherwise. The study itself WAS found to be fraudulent and was retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was de-licensed by medical authorities for his deceit and “callous disregard” for children in his care, including improperly obtaining blood samples from kids at his son's BIRTHDAY PARTY and subjecting autistic children to invasive procedures without proper ethical approval. To anyone reading this, do some serious fact-checking, because I know for a fact that Megan Redshaw peddles plenty of lies, many of which are politically motivated.
You claim to "know for a fact" that I peddle lies (and apparently my motivation for doing so)—yet your comment is filled with inaccuracies and assumptions.
First, The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s 1998 study not because the data itself was proven false, but due to alleged ethical concerns surrounding how some data was obtained. I encourage you to read the actual retraction rather than relying on media soundbites.
Second, the claim that the study “has never been replicated” is demonstrably false. More than a dozen independent scientists have conducted studies examining gastrointestinal issues in children with autism and potential vaccine-related concerns, many of which have confirmed Wakefield’s original observations. Are you suggesting these researchers also engaged in fraud?
If you're truly interested in an open, fact-based discussion, that's one thing. But if your goal is simply to throw out baseless accusations and engage in ad hominem attacks, I suggest you do the “serious fact-checking” you so confidently demand of others.
Here we go... I'm glad you're willing to dig a bit deeper now, Megan, and actually acknowledge the specific Lancet study you were referring to, as referring to it vaguely, as you did in your article here, as "a Lancet study" makes it seem as if there was some degree of avoiding the topic, intentional or otherwise. The fact that people are still talking about the MMR vaccine and a potential link to autism today is a testament to how much traction the discussion unfortunately gained after the Lancet initially published it. Despite his distortions of data, unethical behavior, and countless follow up studies on hundreds of thousands of children in totality (as opposed to just twelve children in Wakefield's study) failing to find any evidence that the vaccines causes autism, the damage has been done.
I'd love to read the studies from "independent scientists" that you claim replicate Wakefield's original manipulated conclusions. Are they as well-controlled as the studies I've read? Are they peer reviewed? How large is the sample size of studied subjects? Either way, to me, choosing to rely on the studies from a select few, rather than the countless, well-controlled and peer-reviewed studies that have been conducted since Wakefield's Lancet study is not a sign of good judgement. As for the Lancet's retraction, the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel chose not to look at the actual conclusions that Wakefield made in his study, and the Panel was merely concerned with the raised ethical concerns. Despite this, the retraction still states that "it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper are incorrect." Without the retraction going into any specifics, again, I think it's a reckless and bold-faced lie to say the retraction had absolutely nothing to do with Wakefield's conclusions, particularly given the fact that he changed and manipulated data.
You're not being honest with yourself if you were to say you'd defend any other study's conclusions if it were found to have very serious ethical flaws or violations -- so serious, in fact, that it caused the author/doctor to be delicensed. I wouldn't defend any such study either, and I would hope that it wouldn't be published in the first place.
That's unfortunately her entire MO. None of the graphs show the whole story, they're all cut off before data that would disprove her point. She shows measles cases decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine in '63, which is true! We did get better at treating people who got it and VERY importantly we started isolating people who had measles, which is a big part of prevention.
But if you actually SHOW the graph in 1963, you see those bumps that are still persistent in the 50s completely disappear.
Why won't she show that? Why does she just show a graph generally trending down and then not show you what happens in 63 after the vaccine is introduced? We were still losing 200 to 300 souls every year from Measles even after we started isolating better.
The vaccine took us from 200 to 300 a year to absolute zero. She doesn't want to show us that because she's a liar.
How many times within these comments have you lied about Wakefield by claiming that he said the MMR caused autism? Anyone can read the paper for themselves and find out what it actually said. Have you even bothered?
Let's not be deliberately obtuse here. We all know Wakefield's stance on the MMR vaccine and how his paper gave traction to his hypothesis that there is a link between the vaccine and autism. Again, it seems I have to repeat this until I stop getting responses from people trying to defend him or mislead readers as to the reasoning behind the retraction of his paper: Wakefield was delicensed, he manipulated data, and his study had very serious ethical flaws/violations. Simply put, his study has been discredited and debunked.
Anyone that has done their homework on Wakefield would know that despite the facts I just laid out, he STILL defends his retracted study and denies allegations of wrongdoing, claiming that there was actually no fraud or falsification of data. In previous interviews, he has stated that he believes his study raises legitimate questions over the MMR vaccine. Does this sound like someone who thinks there isn't a link between autism and the MMR vaccine? If this still doesn't convince you, then this should: 9 months before his study was first published in the Lancet, he submitted patent applications for what he thought would be a safer measles vaccine, and on literally the first page of his patent application, it states, "It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine...results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants." Although I could continue on about the clear conflict of interest there with the study he was working on at the time, like I said before, let's not be deliberately obtuse here about where he stands on the issue. I am not lying when I state that he has claimed that the MMR vaccine causes, or "results" in autism. And if you'd like to see archive of his patent submission, here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20100524175841/http://briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf
If you want to admit that you now stand corrected, I'd appreciate that.
Yes, he suspected a link between MMR and autism when the study was done. Yes, he has since confirmed that as his stance.
No, he did not claim that the MMR caused autism in that paper, nor was that the purpose of the study. As a gastro doctor, he wanted to study the novel bowel disease in order to understand it more thoroughly and offer some hope of treatment for those suffering from it.
I do not accept anything from Brian Deer as being truthful since he has lied about things which I can easily refute with publicly available information.
"Perhaps no lies are easier to disprove or easier for any reader to independently verify than the ones that have been manufactured about British gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield."
"Most people don’t believe me when I explain to them how minor the mention of vaccines was in the infamous, five-page-long 'Lancet study.' Moreover, they have no idea that Dr. Wakefield had twelve other coauthors or that there never was any data about vaccines and autism in the paper itself. One of the many false narratives is that Dr. Wakefield 'faked the data' about vaccines and autism, but that would be impossible. There was no data! [about vaccines and autism in the paper because that was not the focus of the study] The scientists reported parental reports of a relationship between vaccines and autism, nothing more, and were very clear that they felt more study was needed. You’ll likely be shocked that they also said this in the paper: 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"
I’m on your side but because of the battle at hand, the details are important. While it’s important to point out that the vaccine didn’t save us from measles deaths, it DID make measles illness overwhelmingly less common. A statement like the following is easy for the vaccine defenders to tear down because it’s inaccurate: “The decline of measles had nothing to do with vaccination.”
Did it, though? The decline in measles (incidence and deaths) was already well underway before the vaccine's introduction, and historical data shows that measles cases were becoming less severe due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and overall public health. Would measles have continued to decline to present-day numbers without vaccine intervention? Given its trajectory, that’s a legitimate question.
I won’t argue that the MMR vaccine can provide immunity, but that immunity is temporary at best, requiring multiple boosters and still failing to provide lifelong protection like natural infection does. Now, we’re seeing more measles cases in older adolescents and adults—age groups where the disease is far more serious—suggesting that the vaccine shifted the burden rather than eliminating it. (The same applies to infants, who were once protected for their first year of life through previously exposed mothers.)
If someone takes the mainstream stance (which I realize you're not) that correlation does not equal causation when it comes to vaccine injury, then how can they suddenly argue that correlation does equal causation when it comes to the decline of measles? If we demand rigorous proof in one case, we should demand it in all cases.
So while I understand your point about wording, I don’t think we can confidently say the vaccine was responsible for the decline in measles when historical trends suggest a broader context. If anything, we should be questioning whether the way we approached measles control created more problems than it solved.
(Edited to add: I did revise the piece to "measles mortality" since the chart/data I included references mortality.)
Hmmm, I don’t have the stats but I’m pretty sure in the case of measles that there was an immediate, measurable reduction at the time the MMR was introduced. I think it was like EVERYONE got measles at that point, just like EVERYONE got chicken pox when I was a child. Without the vaccines, I agree, it would have probably continued to become milder and milder, and letting it take its course probably would have been a better solution than what has been created. But evaluating what is and would be best is not the same as evaluating the basic stats RE the vaccine’s effects.
I had 3 brothers, we all had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox… mothers brought their unexposed children over to ‘get it over with’… we all recovered well..,
Yes! Those of us that are 60ish and older have a completely different view. We, our siblings, our classmates, we all had measles. I don't know of one person that had any issues with it. (Then again, I was a kid, I might not have known.) But the message we got from our parents was along the line of "it's good you got measles now, you would probably be sicker if you got it when you were older."
My daughter got measles when she was 15 months old, probably from the vaccinated neighbor kid. I read everything I could about it, and was obviously really terrified. She was fine, of course, but I did find out that you're supposed to give 200,000 iu of vitamin A two days in a row as soon as you find out that's what it is. Measles apparently actually erases the immune system and heals the body of any cancer, that's why they're trying to create a cancer vaccine based on measles. Children who get measles are less likely to get cancer as adults. Incidentally, my daughter who had measles has always been my healthiest child since.
True story from about 1960: my 8-year-old cousin was in a children’s hospital (probably in Minneapolis MN) for a life-changing surgery and on the same floor there was another boy who was in with a massive cancerous brain tumor. While in the hospital he got the measles—terrible fever 105 at least — but they treated him as much as they could. Days later he was out of the woods and eventually recovered from the measles completely. When they rescanned his brain before surgery they were stunned: absolutely no tumor existed in his brain. I think it may have been the first time doctors had witnessed it. They’ve had other successful treatments in recent years. So amazing!
You are right I read a case about it long time a go it was a kid that had a brain tumor and got measles, the tumor disappeared!! Doctors thought she was going to died but for their surprise she got stronger and cancer free measles literally ate up the tumor in no time.
I think you have made good points and given good information that holds true for previous times. I am concerned because I think that covid vaccines and perhaps covid or a combination of the two have undermined people’s immune systems leaving them open to more disease and more serious outcomes. It would be ironic and unjust if that turned out to be the case but falling vaccination numbers were blamed instead of covid vaccines
On twitter, not a day goes by when either I write "masks don't work" or the phrase "fear and panic narrative." They want people primed to be freaked out and they get upset when they are called on it.
Measles outbreaks, bird flu outbreaks, high flu numbers, RSV. They want something to stick. something to maintain the threat level, and I tell them to pound sand. They also claim that going out and interacting normally in public is tantamount to "infecting as many people as possible," If I wanted to do that, I would be injecting people because exposing people is horribly inefficient as:
• not everyone exposed gets sick.
• Not everyone sick has bad outcomes.
• If I truly was malicious, wouldn't I find other ways to harm people?
These people have gone around the bend. The "behaving normally is pathological" folks do not like to be called on this. Because I give them a whole host of analogies to show how absurd their thinking is. If going out in public and circulating as normal is "infecting as many people as possible then"
•Swimming is attempting to drown as many people as possible.
• Driving is tempting as much car accidents as possible.
• Eating is inviting as much choking as possible.
This whole idea of "pathology is intrinsic to our nature" sends a horrible message to others that we are "Bare Faced Plague Spreaders" and that we are nasty unhygienic and dirty creatures.
"The CDC used to provide a comprehensive list of vaccine ingredients that clearly detailed the fetal cell lines, chemicals, preservatives, and other additives included in every shot. However, that list has since been removed from the CDC's website, making it far more difficult for people to research what’s actually in these vaccines."
Another suggestion for the new Secretary of HHS: replace all the info that was scrubbed, find out who ordered the scrubbing, and fire that person/those people.
"This 'unknown' group consistently makes up the majority of measles cases and is routinely lumped in with the unvaccinated to inflate numbers and reinforce the false narrative that outbreaks are driven solely by the unvaccinated."
Can you imagine if they grouped the unknowns with the vaccinated? Ha!
"Only 5 cases were in individuals confirmed to be unvaccinated. The other cases were either vaccinated or their vaccination status is unknown."
I do think a lot of it is just true believer syndrome and not per se conspiracy.
If you believe in something, then it will beget all your other ideas/actions.
Monkeypox is a great example, the doctors vaccinated people for smallpox, they were altruistic true believers. The vaccinated people kept getting smallpox. So they knew it had to be named something else.
This isn't a conspiracy it's human bias, it's kind of how schizophrenia works too. Normal people walk past a window and see a tree branch with the sun hitting it in a way that out of the corner of their eye, it looks like a human staring at their window. The normal person checks it out and discerns the tree branch.
The schizophrenic goes and looks, and sees the creeper man disappeared and then explains how the spy/alien pulled it off.
Initial belief bias. Of course there are motivational crossovers, if your money depends on vaccines, even if you're not evil enough to form an active conspiracy, you'll schizophrenia your way to protecting your money by accident.
The same thing could actually occur in reverse, if someone was making 200K/year in a full time job as a anti-vax activist group and say, found one vaccine that seemed okay, they would probably not see it. Even if they'd never lie on purpose, they just would be "schizophrenic" regarding that one item.
With vaccines, you probably had a higher degree of some mild conspiracy, espeically initially, but even then it's a lot of true believers.
Catherine the Great really had a huge impact on vaccine propaganda and I see nothing in any way to suggest she would be relevant to conspiracy. She's pure true believer syndrome. Once you have zealots, the machine becomes a perpetual motion machine and facts don't matter.
This can also trigger reactionary zealots that end up with similar issues. But even if they are right, like often a lot of anti-vaxxers don't pay attention to the best arguments because they are fitting a mold, a culture, a group.
If you really want to understand the lack of efficiency of vaccines, all the autism debates are stupid and such. It's all about differential diagnosis. Since every "cured" disease has proportional rises in differential diagnosis, usually spread across as many as dozens of them.
Chicken pox has seen proportional rises in about 6-10 differential diagnosis with the reduction in cases. Small pox, has now about 5 main differential diagnosis, with one: Mulloscum Contagiousum (the least verbally catchy) being the main culprit, representing some 10s of thousands of small pox cases per year that don't count.
Its less interesting to wade through gray stats for perceived dangers in a sense, that are sometimes as riddled with bad information, then to simply realize the pointless nature of a thing and to realize it confounds diagnosis.
Much how the PCR test is only considered useful under agreed context. Thus not being a scientific test of any note.
Or as one nurse asked me to look into his PSA numbers, that they have no statistical relevance to prostate cancer, anymore than flipping a coin, PSA tests really don't offer much conspiracy style motivations. Just inertial true believer syndrome. Coin flips, gamblers fallacy, magic talismans, etc. Less malice and more zealotry is the truth of the human condition.
The same old FEAR tactic has been used for decades now! When I worked in Infection Control for a county health department in the 80s there was a measles 'outbreak' and a huge push to vaccinate everyone...child and adult! The thing was that nearly every case I investigated was vaccinated. Only one, an adult male, who actually got the disease from his young son who,had just received the immunization...and he was the sickest of those I saw, but never hospitalized and fully recovered. The mortality rate is extremely low, and still the FEAR propaganda is pushed hard everywhere, and those without reasoning abilities buy into it. Until the message changes not much will change. Most of society will Never think for,themselves, simply believe what talking heads say and do as they are told. Hence the derogatory name, Sheeple.
I understand where you’re coming from but regardless of estimations of intelligence the quality in shortest supply is discernment. The majority of my physician colleagues, by most measures intelligent and capable of independent thinking, guzzled the Kool Aid. I watched some run gleefully to their appointments for the mRNA-LNP injections. Very few ever questioned any of it and fewer yet stood their ground against it. By contrast our department janitor, who had a high school diploma, read broadly what he could find, observed, reasoned and prayed about it. He took a religious exemption and refused the shot.
Fear and indoctrination are powerful weapons against the susceptible and no matter the letters behind the name or sheepskins on the wall, the only defense is vigilance and healthy skepticism.
Education does not equal intelligence. As I've told folks for years having an MD, PhD, DNP, etc ONLY means that those people have read different books and had the resources to some educational institute certify with some alphabet soup they did. Doesn't mean they understood, questioned or used said education to benefit others; and those that wear the alphabet soup as a badge of honor should be avoided. I learn something new everyday, from a wide variety of sources and people...and if I,haven't learned something new I,haven't been paying attention🤦♀️. I also thank those who've taught me that new nugget of knowledge, many times being surprised they have done so.
Still more sheeple than not out there these days, IMO🥴.
I’m afraid you’re correct about the gullible and too easily led. The complacency and willingness of too many to accept information sources appealing to their own bias likely reflects many things but it is also no accident. The partitioning of news and opinion into silos is intentional. While it is encouraging to see growing awareness of the deceptions imposed upon us it is also too disorienting and disturbing to those fear ridden souls to risk overturning accepted or even cherished beliefs as the price of opening their eyes. The distress created by the massive cognitive dissonance is evident everywhere we look these days. Any kind of Restoration worth working towards would wisely and necessarily resolve the engineered divisions with these conditions in mind and with a generous amount of grace.
Who first isolated & characterized the measles “virus” ? And what was the method used to isolate & characterize the measles “virus” ? Thank you
Our federal government is an enemy of the Republic. Ironic, is it not?
Thanks for the rundown. I am regretting every vaccine now…
Thanks for you extremely insightful article. I was digging into the measles outbreak of 2018 where the WHO claims there were 142,000 people who died of measles, mostly in Africa, but even tallying up the available numbers from each of these small countries there is nowhere near 142k. Are the WHO completely lying and making up deaths that don't exist for their fearmonger campaign? Please look into these claims I am very curious.
Ummm,…it’s the MEASLES...🙄🥱😒
The original study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield, which falsely claimed a link between the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine and autism, has not been replicated, and it is completely reckless and a bold-faced lie to say otherwise. The study itself WAS found to be fraudulent and was retracted in 2010, and Wakefield was de-licensed by medical authorities for his deceit and “callous disregard” for children in his care, including improperly obtaining blood samples from kids at his son's BIRTHDAY PARTY and subjecting autistic children to invasive procedures without proper ethical approval. To anyone reading this, do some serious fact-checking, because I know for a fact that Megan Redshaw peddles plenty of lies, many of which are politically motivated.
You claim to "know for a fact" that I peddle lies (and apparently my motivation for doing so)—yet your comment is filled with inaccuracies and assumptions.
First, The Lancet retracted Wakefield’s 1998 study not because the data itself was proven false, but due to alleged ethical concerns surrounding how some data was obtained. I encourage you to read the actual retraction rather than relying on media soundbites.
Second, the claim that the study “has never been replicated” is demonstrably false. More than a dozen independent scientists have conducted studies examining gastrointestinal issues in children with autism and potential vaccine-related concerns, many of which have confirmed Wakefield’s original observations. Are you suggesting these researchers also engaged in fraud?
If you're truly interested in an open, fact-based discussion, that's one thing. But if your goal is simply to throw out baseless accusations and engage in ad hominem attacks, I suggest you do the “serious fact-checking” you so confidently demand of others.
Here we go... I'm glad you're willing to dig a bit deeper now, Megan, and actually acknowledge the specific Lancet study you were referring to, as referring to it vaguely, as you did in your article here, as "a Lancet study" makes it seem as if there was some degree of avoiding the topic, intentional or otherwise. The fact that people are still talking about the MMR vaccine and a potential link to autism today is a testament to how much traction the discussion unfortunately gained after the Lancet initially published it. Despite his distortions of data, unethical behavior, and countless follow up studies on hundreds of thousands of children in totality (as opposed to just twelve children in Wakefield's study) failing to find any evidence that the vaccines causes autism, the damage has been done.
I'd love to read the studies from "independent scientists" that you claim replicate Wakefield's original manipulated conclusions. Are they as well-controlled as the studies I've read? Are they peer reviewed? How large is the sample size of studied subjects? Either way, to me, choosing to rely on the studies from a select few, rather than the countless, well-controlled and peer-reviewed studies that have been conducted since Wakefield's Lancet study is not a sign of good judgement. As for the Lancet's retraction, the UK General Medical Council's Fitness to Practise Panel chose not to look at the actual conclusions that Wakefield made in his study, and the Panel was merely concerned with the raised ethical concerns. Despite this, the retraction still states that "it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper are incorrect." Without the retraction going into any specifics, again, I think it's a reckless and bold-faced lie to say the retraction had absolutely nothing to do with Wakefield's conclusions, particularly given the fact that he changed and manipulated data.
You're not being honest with yourself if you were to say you'd defend any other study's conclusions if it were found to have very serious ethical flaws or violations -- so serious, in fact, that it caused the author/doctor to be delicensed. I wouldn't defend any such study either, and I would hope that it wouldn't be published in the first place.
That's unfortunately her entire MO. None of the graphs show the whole story, they're all cut off before data that would disprove her point. She shows measles cases decreasing before the introduction of the vaccine in '63, which is true! We did get better at treating people who got it and VERY importantly we started isolating people who had measles, which is a big part of prevention.
But if you actually SHOW the graph in 1963, you see those bumps that are still persistent in the 50s completely disappear.
Why won't she show that? Why does she just show a graph generally trending down and then not show you what happens in 63 after the vaccine is introduced? We were still losing 200 to 300 souls every year from Measles even after we started isolating better.
The vaccine took us from 200 to 300 a year to absolute zero. She doesn't want to show us that because she's a liar.
How many times within these comments have you lied about Wakefield by claiming that he said the MMR caused autism? Anyone can read the paper for themselves and find out what it actually said. Have you even bothered?
Let's not be deliberately obtuse here. We all know Wakefield's stance on the MMR vaccine and how his paper gave traction to his hypothesis that there is a link between the vaccine and autism. Again, it seems I have to repeat this until I stop getting responses from people trying to defend him or mislead readers as to the reasoning behind the retraction of his paper: Wakefield was delicensed, he manipulated data, and his study had very serious ethical flaws/violations. Simply put, his study has been discredited and debunked.
Anyone that has done their homework on Wakefield would know that despite the facts I just laid out, he STILL defends his retracted study and denies allegations of wrongdoing, claiming that there was actually no fraud or falsification of data. In previous interviews, he has stated that he believes his study raises legitimate questions over the MMR vaccine. Does this sound like someone who thinks there isn't a link between autism and the MMR vaccine? If this still doesn't convince you, then this should: 9 months before his study was first published in the Lancet, he submitted patent applications for what he thought would be a safer measles vaccine, and on literally the first page of his patent application, it states, "It has now also been shown that use of the MMR vaccine...results in ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, chronic colitis and pervasive developmental disorder including autism (RBD), in some infants." Although I could continue on about the clear conflict of interest there with the study he was working on at the time, like I said before, let's not be deliberately obtuse here about where he stands on the issue. I am not lying when I state that he has claimed that the MMR vaccine causes, or "results" in autism. And if you'd like to see archive of his patent submission, here you go: https://web.archive.org/web/20100524175841/http://briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf
If you want to admit that you now stand corrected, I'd appreciate that.
Yes, he suspected a link between MMR and autism when the study was done. Yes, he has since confirmed that as his stance.
No, he did not claim that the MMR caused autism in that paper, nor was that the purpose of the study. As a gastro doctor, he wanted to study the novel bowel disease in order to understand it more thoroughly and offer some hope of treatment for those suffering from it.
I do not accept anything from Brian Deer as being truthful since he has lied about things which I can easily refute with publicly available information.
"Perhaps no lies are easier to disprove or easier for any reader to independently verify than the ones that have been manufactured about British gastroenterologist Dr. Andrew Wakefield."
"Most people don’t believe me when I explain to them how minor the mention of vaccines was in the infamous, five-page-long 'Lancet study.' Moreover, they have no idea that Dr. Wakefield had twelve other coauthors or that there never was any data about vaccines and autism in the paper itself. One of the many false narratives is that Dr. Wakefield 'faked the data' about vaccines and autism, but that would be impossible. There was no data! [about vaccines and autism in the paper because that was not the focus of the study] The scientists reported parental reports of a relationship between vaccines and autism, nothing more, and were very clear that they felt more study was needed. You’ll likely be shocked that they also said this in the paper: 'We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described.'"
https://substack.com/home/post/p-157266544
I’m on your side but because of the battle at hand, the details are important. While it’s important to point out that the vaccine didn’t save us from measles deaths, it DID make measles illness overwhelmingly less common. A statement like the following is easy for the vaccine defenders to tear down because it’s inaccurate: “The decline of measles had nothing to do with vaccination.”
Did it, though? The decline in measles (incidence and deaths) was already well underway before the vaccine's introduction, and historical data shows that measles cases were becoming less severe due to improvements in sanitation, nutrition, and overall public health. Would measles have continued to decline to present-day numbers without vaccine intervention? Given its trajectory, that’s a legitimate question.
I won’t argue that the MMR vaccine can provide immunity, but that immunity is temporary at best, requiring multiple boosters and still failing to provide lifelong protection like natural infection does. Now, we’re seeing more measles cases in older adolescents and adults—age groups where the disease is far more serious—suggesting that the vaccine shifted the burden rather than eliminating it. (The same applies to infants, who were once protected for their first year of life through previously exposed mothers.)
If someone takes the mainstream stance (which I realize you're not) that correlation does not equal causation when it comes to vaccine injury, then how can they suddenly argue that correlation does equal causation when it comes to the decline of measles? If we demand rigorous proof in one case, we should demand it in all cases.
So while I understand your point about wording, I don’t think we can confidently say the vaccine was responsible for the decline in measles when historical trends suggest a broader context. If anything, we should be questioning whether the way we approached measles control created more problems than it solved.
(Edited to add: I did revise the piece to "measles mortality" since the chart/data I included references mortality.)
Hmmm, I don’t have the stats but I’m pretty sure in the case of measles that there was an immediate, measurable reduction at the time the MMR was introduced. I think it was like EVERYONE got measles at that point, just like EVERYONE got chicken pox when I was a child. Without the vaccines, I agree, it would have probably continued to become milder and milder, and letting it take its course probably would have been a better solution than what has been created. But evaluating what is and would be best is not the same as evaluating the basic stats RE the vaccine’s effects.
I had 3 brothers, we all had measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox… mothers brought their unexposed children over to ‘get it over with’… we all recovered well..,
Yes! Those of us that are 60ish and older have a completely different view. We, our siblings, our classmates, we all had measles. I don't know of one person that had any issues with it. (Then again, I was a kid, I might not have known.) But the message we got from our parents was along the line of "it's good you got measles now, you would probably be sicker if you got it when you were older."
My daughter got measles when she was 15 months old, probably from the vaccinated neighbor kid. I read everything I could about it, and was obviously really terrified. She was fine, of course, but I did find out that you're supposed to give 200,000 iu of vitamin A two days in a row as soon as you find out that's what it is. Measles apparently actually erases the immune system and heals the body of any cancer, that's why they're trying to create a cancer vaccine based on measles. Children who get measles are less likely to get cancer as adults. Incidentally, my daughter who had measles has always been my healthiest child since.
True story from about 1960: my 8-year-old cousin was in a children’s hospital (probably in Minneapolis MN) for a life-changing surgery and on the same floor there was another boy who was in with a massive cancerous brain tumor. While in the hospital he got the measles—terrible fever 105 at least — but they treated him as much as they could. Days later he was out of the woods and eventually recovered from the measles completely. When they rescanned his brain before surgery they were stunned: absolutely no tumor existed in his brain. I think it may have been the first time doctors had witnessed it. They’ve had other successful treatments in recent years. So amazing!
You are right I read a case about it long time a go it was a kid that had a brain tumor and got measles, the tumor disappeared!! Doctors thought she was going to died but for their surprise she got stronger and cancer free measles literally ate up the tumor in no time.
I think you have made good points and given good information that holds true for previous times. I am concerned because I think that covid vaccines and perhaps covid or a combination of the two have undermined people’s immune systems leaving them open to more disease and more serious outcomes. It would be ironic and unjust if that turned out to be the case but falling vaccination numbers were blamed instead of covid vaccines
There's some research that suggests this may be the case.
On twitter, not a day goes by when either I write "masks don't work" or the phrase "fear and panic narrative." They want people primed to be freaked out and they get upset when they are called on it.
Measles outbreaks, bird flu outbreaks, high flu numbers, RSV. They want something to stick. something to maintain the threat level, and I tell them to pound sand. They also claim that going out and interacting normally in public is tantamount to "infecting as many people as possible," If I wanted to do that, I would be injecting people because exposing people is horribly inefficient as:
• not everyone exposed gets sick.
• Not everyone sick has bad outcomes.
• If I truly was malicious, wouldn't I find other ways to harm people?
These people have gone around the bend. The "behaving normally is pathological" folks do not like to be called on this. Because I give them a whole host of analogies to show how absurd their thinking is. If going out in public and circulating as normal is "infecting as many people as possible then"
•Swimming is attempting to drown as many people as possible.
• Driving is tempting as much car accidents as possible.
• Eating is inviting as much choking as possible.
This whole idea of "pathology is intrinsic to our nature" sends a horrible message to others that we are "Bare Faced Plague Spreaders" and that we are nasty unhygienic and dirty creatures.
"The CDC used to provide a comprehensive list of vaccine ingredients that clearly detailed the fetal cell lines, chemicals, preservatives, and other additives included in every shot. However, that list has since been removed from the CDC's website, making it far more difficult for people to research what’s actually in these vaccines."
Another suggestion for the new Secretary of HHS: replace all the info that was scrubbed, find out who ordered the scrubbing, and fire that person/those people.
"This 'unknown' group consistently makes up the majority of measles cases and is routinely lumped in with the unvaccinated to inflate numbers and reinforce the false narrative that outbreaks are driven solely by the unvaccinated."
Can you imagine if they grouped the unknowns with the vaccinated? Ha!
"Only 5 cases were in individuals confirmed to be unvaccinated. The other cases were either vaccinated or their vaccination status is unknown."
A page out of the covid playbook!
I do think the groups should be differentiated so we can see what the actual numbers are.
I do think a lot of it is just true believer syndrome and not per se conspiracy.
If you believe in something, then it will beget all your other ideas/actions.
Monkeypox is a great example, the doctors vaccinated people for smallpox, they were altruistic true believers. The vaccinated people kept getting smallpox. So they knew it had to be named something else.
This isn't a conspiracy it's human bias, it's kind of how schizophrenia works too. Normal people walk past a window and see a tree branch with the sun hitting it in a way that out of the corner of their eye, it looks like a human staring at their window. The normal person checks it out and discerns the tree branch.
The schizophrenic goes and looks, and sees the creeper man disappeared and then explains how the spy/alien pulled it off.
Initial belief bias. Of course there are motivational crossovers, if your money depends on vaccines, even if you're not evil enough to form an active conspiracy, you'll schizophrenia your way to protecting your money by accident.
The same thing could actually occur in reverse, if someone was making 200K/year in a full time job as a anti-vax activist group and say, found one vaccine that seemed okay, they would probably not see it. Even if they'd never lie on purpose, they just would be "schizophrenic" regarding that one item.
With vaccines, you probably had a higher degree of some mild conspiracy, espeically initially, but even then it's a lot of true believers.
Catherine the Great really had a huge impact on vaccine propaganda and I see nothing in any way to suggest she would be relevant to conspiracy. She's pure true believer syndrome. Once you have zealots, the machine becomes a perpetual motion machine and facts don't matter.
This can also trigger reactionary zealots that end up with similar issues. But even if they are right, like often a lot of anti-vaxxers don't pay attention to the best arguments because they are fitting a mold, a culture, a group.
If you really want to understand the lack of efficiency of vaccines, all the autism debates are stupid and such. It's all about differential diagnosis. Since every "cured" disease has proportional rises in differential diagnosis, usually spread across as many as dozens of them.
Chicken pox has seen proportional rises in about 6-10 differential diagnosis with the reduction in cases. Small pox, has now about 5 main differential diagnosis, with one: Mulloscum Contagiousum (the least verbally catchy) being the main culprit, representing some 10s of thousands of small pox cases per year that don't count.
Its less interesting to wade through gray stats for perceived dangers in a sense, that are sometimes as riddled with bad information, then to simply realize the pointless nature of a thing and to realize it confounds diagnosis.
Much how the PCR test is only considered useful under agreed context. Thus not being a scientific test of any note.
Or as one nurse asked me to look into his PSA numbers, that they have no statistical relevance to prostate cancer, anymore than flipping a coin, PSA tests really don't offer much conspiracy style motivations. Just inertial true believer syndrome. Coin flips, gamblers fallacy, magic talismans, etc. Less malice and more zealotry is the truth of the human condition.
“Health officials have not disclosed whether the measles strain responsible for recent outbreaks is vaccine-derived or wild-type…”
So we can conclude it’s the vaccine-derived strain.
The same old FEAR tactic has been used for decades now! When I worked in Infection Control for a county health department in the 80s there was a measles 'outbreak' and a huge push to vaccinate everyone...child and adult! The thing was that nearly every case I investigated was vaccinated. Only one, an adult male, who actually got the disease from his young son who,had just received the immunization...and he was the sickest of those I saw, but never hospitalized and fully recovered. The mortality rate is extremely low, and still the FEAR propaganda is pushed hard everywhere, and those without reasoning abilities buy into it. Until the message changes not much will change. Most of society will Never think for,themselves, simply believe what talking heads say and do as they are told. Hence the derogatory name, Sheeple.
I understand where you’re coming from but regardless of estimations of intelligence the quality in shortest supply is discernment. The majority of my physician colleagues, by most measures intelligent and capable of independent thinking, guzzled the Kool Aid. I watched some run gleefully to their appointments for the mRNA-LNP injections. Very few ever questioned any of it and fewer yet stood their ground against it. By contrast our department janitor, who had a high school diploma, read broadly what he could find, observed, reasoned and prayed about it. He took a religious exemption and refused the shot.
Fear and indoctrination are powerful weapons against the susceptible and no matter the letters behind the name or sheepskins on the wall, the only defense is vigilance and healthy skepticism.
Education does not equal intelligence. As I've told folks for years having an MD, PhD, DNP, etc ONLY means that those people have read different books and had the resources to some educational institute certify with some alphabet soup they did. Doesn't mean they understood, questioned or used said education to benefit others; and those that wear the alphabet soup as a badge of honor should be avoided. I learn something new everyday, from a wide variety of sources and people...and if I,haven't learned something new I,haven't been paying attention🤦♀️. I also thank those who've taught me that new nugget of knowledge, many times being surprised they have done so.
Still more sheeple than not out there these days, IMO🥴.
I’m afraid you’re correct about the gullible and too easily led. The complacency and willingness of too many to accept information sources appealing to their own bias likely reflects many things but it is also no accident. The partitioning of news and opinion into silos is intentional. While it is encouraging to see growing awareness of the deceptions imposed upon us it is also too disorienting and disturbing to those fear ridden souls to risk overturning accepted or even cherished beliefs as the price of opening their eyes. The distress created by the massive cognitive dissonance is evident everywhere we look these days. Any kind of Restoration worth working towards would wisely and necessarily resolve the engineered divisions with these conditions in mind and with a generous amount of grace.