Wild vs Artificial Exposure to Measles are Not Equal
Published December 5, 2018 | Opinion
There is a fact rarely considered by public health officials:
vaccination is not an intervention that eliminates disease exposure for
individuals. Vaccination replaces wild exposure with artificial
exposure, and they are not equal. We are many decades into mass
vaccination campaigns, and it is
alarming that instead of the medical and scientific community stepping back to examine the overall impact on public and individual health to see if current strategies should be reevaluated, the focus is on those who question or refuse vaccination.
Experts have acknowledged that the current measles vaccine cannot eradicate measles because of primary and secondary failure.1 Studies have found that the concentration and duration of maternal antibody protection for infants with vaccinated mothers is lower and shorter than protection provided by non-vaccinated mothers,2 and it has been found that a third dose of MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine cannot boost protection for any length of time,3 leaving most adults unprotected.
We have entered a vaccine-era of vulnerable infants and vulnerable older adults—populations that were protected when measles circulated naturally. It’s a messy conundrum, and it cannot be laid at the feet of those who opt out of vaccination. For the vast majority of healthy children who can easily handle a case of measles in childhood, vaccination provides no personal benefit and exposes them only to vaccine injury risk and vulnerability to measles in adulthood.
Since industry does not make a single measles vaccine available, that leaves just the controversial MMR that appears to not have had any clinical trials. MMR contains fragmented fetal DNA in the rubella portion, which some find morally objectionable and others medically problematic because of the potential for autoimmunity and insertional mutagenesis.4 As well, the vaccine is highly contaminated with glyphosate from the gelatin,6 and there are no studies showing injecting glyphosate to be safe or how it may alter the immune response to the other ingredients. Add that [MMR vaccine manufacturer) Merck & Co. has been accused of falsifying the efficacy of the mumps portion of their vaccine6 and, Houston, we have a problem.
One-hundred percent vaccination uptake would not alter the dilemma of vaccine failure or risk. The World Health Organization (WHO) chose a goal of global eradication before they had a safe tool able to achieve it. Rather than pushing for higher uptake, time and money would be far better spent on implementing rapid diagnosis and notification programs using new technologies to utilize good old-fashioned detection & isolation, researching best and safest measles treatments, and building the basics of healthy immunity in poor communities: clean water, proper sanitation, and adequate nutrition.
Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published as a “rapid response” piece in The BMJ. Bernadette Pajer is co-president of Informed Choice WA.
References:
alarming that instead of the medical and scientific community stepping back to examine the overall impact on public and individual health to see if current strategies should be reevaluated, the focus is on those who question or refuse vaccination.
Experts have acknowledged that the current measles vaccine cannot eradicate measles because of primary and secondary failure.1 Studies have found that the concentration and duration of maternal antibody protection for infants with vaccinated mothers is lower and shorter than protection provided by non-vaccinated mothers,2 and it has been found that a third dose of MMR (mumps, measles, rubella) vaccine cannot boost protection for any length of time,3 leaving most adults unprotected.
We have entered a vaccine-era of vulnerable infants and vulnerable older adults—populations that were protected when measles circulated naturally. It’s a messy conundrum, and it cannot be laid at the feet of those who opt out of vaccination. For the vast majority of healthy children who can easily handle a case of measles in childhood, vaccination provides no personal benefit and exposes them only to vaccine injury risk and vulnerability to measles in adulthood.
Since industry does not make a single measles vaccine available, that leaves just the controversial MMR that appears to not have had any clinical trials. MMR contains fragmented fetal DNA in the rubella portion, which some find morally objectionable and others medically problematic because of the potential for autoimmunity and insertional mutagenesis.4 As well, the vaccine is highly contaminated with glyphosate from the gelatin,6 and there are no studies showing injecting glyphosate to be safe or how it may alter the immune response to the other ingredients. Add that [MMR vaccine manufacturer) Merck & Co. has been accused of falsifying the efficacy of the mumps portion of their vaccine6 and, Houston, we have a problem.
One-hundred percent vaccination uptake would not alter the dilemma of vaccine failure or risk. The World Health Organization (WHO) chose a goal of global eradication before they had a safe tool able to achieve it. Rather than pushing for higher uptake, time and money would be far better spent on implementing rapid diagnosis and notification programs using new technologies to utilize good old-fashioned detection & isolation, researching best and safest measles treatments, and building the basics of healthy immunity in poor communities: clean water, proper sanitation, and adequate nutrition.
Note: This article was reprinted with the author’s permission. It was originally published as a “rapid response” piece in The BMJ. Bernadette Pajer is co-president of Informed Choice WA.
References:
No comments:
Post a Comment