by Sayer Ji, Green Med Info:
How many measles cases like this one reported in New Hampshire, and acknowledged by the Department of Health and Human Services, are caused by the MMR vaccine, yet blamed on the unvaccinated?
A case of falsely identified ‘measles’ caused by the MMR vaccine, reported in the New Hampshire Union Leader, is receiving attention for revealing something health authorities and the mainstream media normally unilaterally deny: the newly vaccinated sometimes express symptoms identical to the disease they believe the vaccine prevents.
The report describes the case as follows:
“The Keene-area child believed to be infected with measles was probably experiencing a reaction from the measles vaccine, and the public is not at risk of a measles outbreak, state health officials said.
Earlier this week, state officials said that the child had visited a church and school in the Keene area and warned that those near the child were at risk of exposure.
It was New Hampshire’s only supposed case of measles, and the news piggybacked on outbreaks in New York and California, where health officials blamed parents who did not immunize children against the disease.
But early Thursday afternoon, state officials said additional laboratory test results suggest that the live-attenuated measles-mumps-rubella vaccine was responsible for the child’s symptoms.”
As a result of this discovery, the Department of Health and Human Services suspended public health warnings and interventions stating, “There is no contagious measles known to be circulating in the community.”
According to the Union Leader article, the Connecticut DHHS also stated in their release that approximately 5 percent of individuals vaccinated with the MMR vaccine develop a fever and rash reaction — symptoms that are indistinguishable from natural measles infection.
So How Do Health Authorities Distinguishs MMR Vaccine Reactions from Naturally-Acquired Measles?
Despite common assumptions to the contrary, health authorities generally don’t distinguish between the two, even though a technology known as PCR is capable of doing so. Without performing this test, it is impossible to identify and distinguish with any certainty MMR vaccine-induced infection with naturally transmitted and acquired strains, as symptoms of infection by either route can present in clinically identical fashion. Instead, those who express symptoms who are under- or non-vaccinated are routinely blamed for the infection.
Stop Blaming A Failing Vaccine on Failure to Vaccinate
There is also evidence that those who receive the MMR vaccine can transmit it to others (known as secondary transmission). The most well documented example of this is from a 2011 outbreak of measles in NYC where a a twice-vaccinated individual, was found to have transmitted measles to four of her contacts, two of which themselves had received two doses of MMR vaccine and had prior presumably protective measles IgG antibody results.
We’ve covered this case in depth in our article, Measles Transmitted By The Vaccinated, Gov. Researchers Confirm. In that article we also address the problem of blaming a faililng measles vaccine on failure to vaccinate by highlighting the following historical cases (which are not exhaustive) of outbreaks occurring secondary to measles vaccine failure and shedding in up to 99% immunization compliant populations:
1985, Texas, USA: According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded: “We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.”1
1985, Montana, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.”2
1988, Colorado, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity … due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded: “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.”3
1989, Quebec, Canada: According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded “Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.4
1991-1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccine before their first birthday.5
1992, Cape Town, South Africa: According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak.6
These seven outbreaks are by no means exhaustive of the biomedical literature, but illustrate just how misled the general public is about the effectiveness of measles vaccines, and the CDC’s vaccination agenda in general. No amount of historical ignorance will erase the fact that vaccination does not equal immunization; antigenicity does not equal immunogenicity. Nor are the unintended, adverse effects of MMR and other vaccines in the CDC schedule accurately portrayed, precluding access to the medical ethical principle of informed consent.