[GREENMEDINFO] Written by Written By: Sayer Ji, Founder
20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck’s own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?
The Vaccinated Spreading Measles
The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, 20 years ago, scientists working at the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.
Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.
The authors of this study used a relatively new technology at that time, namely, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which they believed could help resolve growing challenges associated with measles detection in the shifting post-mass immunization epidemiological and clinical landscape. These challenges include:
A changing clinical presentation towards ‘milder’ or asymptomatic measles in previously vaccinated individuals.
A changing epidemiological distribution of measles (a shift toward children younger than 15 months, teenagers, and young adults)
Increasing difficulty distinguishing measles-like symptoms (exanthema) caused by a range of other pathogens from those caused by measles virus.
An increase in sporadic measles outbreaks in previously vaccinated individuals.
Twenty years later, PCR testing is widely acknowledged as highly sensitive and specific, and the only efficient way to distinguish vaccine-strain and wild-type measles infection, as their clinical presentation are indistinguishable.
[Comment: Those of us who demand sanity, safety, and genuine informed consent with regard to the vaccination schedule, are increasingly being vilified and threatened. The latest example comes from the Boston Herald, which, in a dumbed down, poorly written editorial on May 8th stated that asking questions about the brain-damaging ingredients in vaccines “ought to be a hanging offense.”
Shame on the Boston Herald! Shamelessly taking major ad revenue from Big Pharma while simultaneously acting as its threatening “hit man!” The only good thing about this article is all the comments it inspired, which shows how people really feel about the issue.
If you strongly believe in health freedom and informed consent, please contact the Boston Herald — see below for contact information — and demand that they issue a retraction of their support for violence against those who question the vaccine orthodoxy. ~ SVC]
If you have ever wondered what the opposite of love is, let me tell you… it’s not hate. It’s fear.12Yes, I’m aware of the slightly different and perhaps more popular take on that idea by Elie Wiesel: “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.”3 I like both of them, but I lean toward the former. So what breeds fear?
What we have in the evolving, ever more contentious debate over vaccines and vaccine policy in the United States is a lot of fear, fueled by a lot of ignorance. Ignorance about vaccine history, science and the ethics of mandatory vaccination laws. That’s bad enough. But what’s worse is the product of that ignorance-bred fear.
All too often, the by-product of fear is violence or the call to violence—which is what we’re starting to see in newspaper and magazine articles written by those who oppose and want to marginalize anyone who publicly criticizes the safety of vaccine policies or advocates for the human right to exercise informed consent to medical risk taking, which includes the right to make a voluntary decision about use of vaccines.
The piece was in response to a recent event in which Somali American families, who have the highest rate of autism in the United States, voiced their concerns about the vaccine injury they were experiencing. The Minnesota Somali community is being aggressively targeted for rounds of MMR vaccines.
Why I am filing a complaint with the FBI and the Boston Police
In conclusion, with its editorial calling for the killing of vaccine skeptics, the Boston Herald has just declared open warfare on people like myself who are informed, compassionate defenders of the lives of children. The Boston Herald has directly threatened rational vaccine skeptics and is now complicit in any acts of aggression or violence against any of us. Today, I am filing an official criminal complaint with the Boston FBI to urge them to investigate the Boston Herald staffers for their criminal intimidation and calls for mass murder, and I am going to inform the FBI that I consistently assert my right to invoke a firearm in my own self-defense against violent lunatics like the Boston Herald terrorists.
As part of this effort, I have already called the Boston police, and they told me where to officially file my complaint in my local jurisdiction so that they can open an investigation into the Boston Herald.
In a development that autism parents have long anticipated, the first-ever, peer-reviewed study comparing total health outcomes in vaccinated and unvaccinated children was released on line yesterday. According to sources close to the project, the study had been reviewed and accepted by two different journals, both of which pulled back on their approval once the political implications of the findings became clear. That’s largely because, as parents have long expected, the rate of autism is significantly higher in the vaccinated group, a finding that could shake vaccine safety claims just as the first president who has ever stated a belief in a link between vaccines and autism has taken office.
Working in partnership with the National Home Education Research Institute (NHERI), Dr. Anthony Mawson led a research team that investigated the relationship between vaccination exposures and a range of over 40 acute and chronic illnesses in home schooled children, a population chosen for its high proportion of unvaccinated children. Surveying families in four states–Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oregon—the study (officially titled Vaccination and Health Outcomes: A Survey of 6- to 12-year-old Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Children based on Mothers’ Reports), reported a number of startling findings.
Vaccinated children were significantly more likely than the unvaccinated to have been diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder: most notably, the risk of being affected by an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) was 4.7 fold higher in vaccinated children; as well, ADHD risk was 4.7 fold higher and learning disability risk was 3.7 fold higher. Overall, the vaccinated children in the study were 3.7 times more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of neurodevelopmental disorder.
Vaccinated children were also significantly more likely to be diagnosed with an immune-related disorder. The risk of allergic rhinitis (commonly known as hay fever) was over 30 times higher in vaccinated children, while the risk of other allergies was increased 3.9 fold and the eczema risk was increased 2.4 fold.
With respect to acute illness and infectious disease the outcomes were in some respects surprising. As might be expected, unvaccinated children were significantly (4-10 times) more likely to have come down with chicken pox, rubella or pertussis. Perhaps unexpectedly, the unvaccinated children were less likely to suffer from otitis media and pneumonia: vaccinated children had 3.8 times greater odds of a middle ear infection and 5.9 times greater odds of a bout with pneumonia.
The study was based on a survey with participants recruited in a process led by NHERI and coordinated through 84 state and local homeschool groups. The survey itself was, according to the authors, “nonbiased and neutrally worded.”
These findings in a study population of 666 children, 261 of whom (39%) were unvaccinated, are sure to stir controversy, in part because it is the first of its kind. The scientific literature on the long-term effects of the vaccination program is virtually silent. Most studies on the safety of vaccines only consider immediate or short-term effects. There was no obvious explanation for the differences in health outcomes observed between the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups of children other than vaccination itself.
The finding that vaccination is a significant risk for autism is the most explosive finding in the paper. For well over a decade, parents concerned that vaccines were involved in autism’s sharp rise have been calling for what has long been labelled the “vax/unvax” study. Public health officials such as Paul Offit have resisted these calls with claims that a comparative study of autism risk and other health outcomes in unvaccinated and vaccinated children would be retrospectively impossible and prospectively unethical.
Despite opposition from those like Offit, attempts to launch a formal vax/unvax study have been made for many years. In 2006, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (D, NY) authored what is now called Vaccine Safety Study Act. Said Maloney to the opponents, “Maybe someone in the medical establishment will show me why this study is a bad idea, but they haven’t done it yet.” In 2007, Generation Rescue (one of the Mawson study’s sponsors) retained a market research firm to undertake a similar survey (it is available on line and had similar findings but was never published in a scientific journal).