In the year before COVID-19, aside from mandates for children, fear mongering was the communication of choice to push people into vaccinating against measles, mumps and rubella and all types of other diseases and conditions. Media outlets were publishing angry editorials, spewing hate against parents who chose not to vaccinate their children and blaming them for others getting measles.1
Some state and federal legislators were piggybacking on this rhetoric, proposing severe restrictions on the medical vaccine exemption and eliminating conscientious belief exemptions in state vaccine laws.2 Throughout 2019, bills were proposed to either remove or restrict exemptions.
One of the most striking was in New York, which in a single day eliminated the religious exemption to vaccination, with no public hearings.3 Soon after, New York state health officials created stricter rules so doctors needed to complete a form giving specific medical reasons for a vaccine exemption.4
The National Vaccine Information Center found as of June 2019, “there have been no cases of measles reported among children attending school with religious exemptions” There are conflicting reports in media sources as Vox describes a cluster of measles infection in a close knit community in New York in April 2019.5,6 Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center commented on the way the bill was passed, saying:
“This new law, which was rammed through the New York legislature without public participation violates the human right to hold religious and spiritual beliefs that honor and protect bodily integrity.
When a government has to resort to forcing parents to choose between violating their religious beliefs and conscience or giving their children a school education, that government has chosen to rule by fear and coercion and will lose the respect and trust of the people.”
Mumps Vaccine Has Had Serious Problems
In 2010, a lawsuit was filed against Merck drug company by two infectious disease experts who were previous employees of the company. They said that Merck lied about the effectiveness of the MMR II vaccine, which is supposed to immunize against measles, mumps and rubella. The doctors reported that the efficacy of the mumps portion of the vaccine had been artificially inflated.
To date, the lawsuit has not been resolved.7 The whistleblowers, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, allege several fraudulent tactics were used with the aim to “report efficacy of 95% or higher regardless of the vaccine’s true efficacy.”8
Artificially inflating the efficacy percentage has enabled Merck to maintain a monopoly over the mumps vaccine market. In 2015, the company was accused of stonewalling the process, which attorneys for Krahling and Wlochowski outlined in a letter to the judge. When writing about Merck’s refusal to reveal the actual efficacy of their mumps vaccine, they said:9
“Yet, Merck refuses to answer any questions on the subject, instead hiding behind a facade of confusion and obfuscation as to what efficacy means. Merck does so even though efficacy is a common term used throughout the industry to identify how well a vaccine works. It is also a term Merck has, until now, freely used throughout these proceedings to describe how well its vaccine works.
Either Merck knows the current efficacy of its mumps vaccine, or it does not. If it does, it should be required to answer Interrogatory No. 1 and the identified RFAs as posed. If it does not know the current efficacy, it should be required to answer the Interrogatory and RFAs accordingly.
Whichever the case, Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately represented on the product’s label, but then refuse to answer what it claims that efficacy actually is.”
People May Lose Immunity Years After MMR Vaccine
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there were 1,282 cases of measles in 2019, all of which were attributed to the wild type D8 or B3. However, 2019 was highly unusual as the number was more than triple that of eight of the previous nine years, and it was nearly double the other. Since 2010, in most years fewer than 200 cases of measles have been reported each year.10
Similarly, in another report it was noted that the number of annual cases of mumps had spiked, suggesting the strength of vaccine-induced immunity had weakened.11 The authors of one study that was recently published in The Lancet performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English from the inception of three databases — PubMed, Web of Science and Embase — through December 31, 2019.12
The researchers identified 3,615 studies, of which 62 met their eligibility criteria. A commentary published in the same issue described the study as a meta-analysis on the “overall data related to the immunogenicity and antibody persistence after immunization with trivalent MMR vaccines.”13
The researchers believe their data “provides estimates of primary and secondary vaccine failure.”14 The researchers hope the information revealed from their meta-analysis will help public health experts identify groups of individuals who are vulnerable to infection. This may help to guide future vaccination strategies.15
However, as the commentary pointed out, a reduced number of natural vaccine boosts from exposure to people with measles acquired naturally will stop with universal vaccination. This also could exacerbate the problems with weakening immunity following the MMR vaccine.
Humoral Immunity Tested, Cellular Immunity Was Not
The authors of the commentary point out there is no standardization for serological tests for immunity, calling for a “gold-standard cutoff level of seropositivity” to allow accurate comparisons between labs.16
This would have made it challenging for the researchers to compare results from data published in 1900, which is how far Web of Science says they cover science publications.17 Embrace covers research from 194718 and PubMed beginning from the 1940s,19 spanning over 60 years of medical and technological advancement.
The analysis included studies whose authors had only measured humoral immunity, not cellular immunity. This could also underestimate the real level of protection from vaccines:20
“In this sense, low antibody concentrations do not necessarily correspond to a lack of protection. However, these are the best data available so far and, if correctly used, could be very useful in the assessment of future public health decisions.”
Humoral immunity and cell mediated immunity differ in their mechanisms of action. Humoral immunity is fast acting, using antibodies produced against protein antigens, whereas cell mediated immunity destroys pathogens and microorganisms inside an infected cell.21
As I’ve covered recently in “Vaccine Debate: Kennedy Jr. vs Dershowitz,” 1 in 40 people who get vaccinated will be injured by the medication, as opposed to the commonly cited 1 in 1 million people the media likes to report. So, to recap:
- The data implicates a reduction in the efficacy of the MMR vaccine in the years after a person was vaccinated.
- The measurements were done over 62 studies, yet there are no standardized serological tests.
- The researchers measured humoral immunity and not cellular immunity, which may not accurately reflect a person’s true immunity.
- Based on the vaccine weakening, experts recommend several boosters may be needed for all people.
- While recommending booster shots for a vaccine that has questionable efficacy, experts are not considering the number of vaccine related injuries, which will likely rise as more and more people stand get an annual or biannual booster.
How Lethal Are Mumps and Measles?
I will preface this with my belief that even one death is one too many. Yet, it seems that not all medical experts agree that mumps and measles are dangerous conditions. In fact, some don’t have a consistent message for their patients.
For instance, Penn Medicine recommends vaccinations because “If untreated, mumps can be fatal. However, deaths caused by mumps are very rare.”22 The same group also says “Mumps will eventually go away — typically in about two to three weeks — but there’s no medication or treatment to cure it.”
These two contradictory statements, which appear within a paragraph of each other, beg the question — if the condition is truly fatal when left untreated and there’s no medication or treatment to cure it, then how can they say it can be treated to prevent death? If it sounds confusing, it is, especially when you consider that Penn Medicine also warns that people should be monitored for complications, such as meningitis.
However, unlike meningitis that is a complication of an ear or sinus infection, pneumonia or respiratory infections triggered by bacteria entering the bloodstream,23 mumps is a viral infection. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control24 says unlike bacterial meningitis, “Mumps meningitis is a mild and often asymptomatic disease with complete recovery.”
According to data published by the CDC in 2019, the last recorded measles-associated death in the U.S. was in 2015.25 Even before the vaccine, the annual death toll from the measles in the U.S. was from 400 to 500 of the estimated 3 to 4 million cases of measles each year.
Any death, for any reason is tragic. However, after reviewing the statistics, the question remains — is it reasonable to mandate a vaccine for diseases with exceptionally low mortality rates, thus increasing the risk of adverse events for millions of children after exposure to the vaccine?
Disabilities, death, chronic poor health and brain damage are just some of the adverse events children experience after vaccination. For a deeper discussion of the public health ramifications of vaccines, see “Measles Propaganda Can Have Dire Public Health Ramifications.” In it is a short interview with a mother of three whose son is brain damaged following his infant vaccinations.
Vaccine Safety Concerns Growing
Public concern over the safety of vaccination is indeed growing. This is reflected in the number who are hesitant to receive a new coronavirus vaccine, even if it’s free. In a recent USA Today/Suffolk poll, two-thirds of U.S. voters said they don’t plan to get the vaccine when it becomes available, and 25% said they will never get it.26
This builds on what others were already finding, as Science magazine reported in June 2020 that just 50% planned to get a new COVID-19 vaccine.27 While experts and journalists contemplate how to win over those who say they won’t take it under any circumstance, distrust is growing over buried evidence and the undertaking to meld human biology, technology and artificial intelligence — or the promise of becoming “Human 2.0.”
To raise the potential that more people will take the vaccine, a clinical study28 announced on ClinicalTrials.gov is taking aim at the messages you read and hear about the vaccine. Led by Yale University, researchers are testing the most effective method to manipulate your mind using 10 options. These include your feelings about:
- Personal freedom
- Economic benefit or freedom
- Trusting science
As legislators and scientists are pushing for mandatory vaccination programs that may or may not have significant and life-long effects, consider gathering your own information about vaccine injuries. You’ll discover more at:
- The NVIC International Memorial for Vaccine Victims,29 where you can search for vaccine injury reports by state and by vaccine, or post a vaccine injury report yourself. You can also post your own video reporting a vaccine injury or death.
- Vaccine Injury Stories on Vaxxed.com.30 Here, you can find nearly 125,700 written and recorded stories detailing people’s vaccine injuries, sorted by state or by vaccine. To submit your own story, use this online submission form.31
- MedAlerts is a searchable database of vaccine injury reports made to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) and can be accessed through the website of the National Vaccine Information Center at NVIC.org.