Measles epidemic .. free vaccine offered to the Bordeaux students

In fact opinion which seems to have very little to do with his claim (limited duration of immunity following vaccination for measles leading to many cases in young adults).

1 - Even if Dr Halvorsen’s has “form” on this matter in the France 24 piece the discussion on measles vaccination did not make the claim that young adults are getting measles because the vaccination only provides limited protection - he even stated that he was in favour of vaccination.

2- A fact free letter to the BMJ merely asking/opining whether immunisation should be reserved for high risk individuals and the rest left to acquire natural immunity. Possibly a bit left of field even then but 1980 was a long time ago. The idea the measles is “a mild disease” comes up again which was a point raised in the first reference - yes, it is mild in many but it is severe in some and fatal in others. If we can improve on the natural mortality of this disease we should do so.

3 - I can’t find this data.

4 - Data from the pre-vaccination era; hardly relevant to your claim. Yes mortality had been falling before vaccination was introduced because medical care generally was improving- especially antibiotics (while measles is a virus the pneumonia that some get can be caused or complicated by a bacterial superinfection in the same way that influenza can precede a bacterial pneumonia). Your point is?

5 - I’m not paying good money to read Dr Thomas’s book - all I need to know is that he appears to still be beating the vaccination causes autism drum. That relationship has been busted more times than someone playing casino blackjack for a week straight without sleep.

So, err, not convinced. Thanks for trying though.

1 Like


Easily found on the NHS website

yes, Nellie, I take you back to your first post on this topic : ’ but if what you read isn’t impartial…’

I am aware that Cognitive dissonance is a difficult barrier to overcome, and I don’t ask anyone to believe what I say, I have no axe to grind, I only want what is best for us all.
All I ask is : look at the vested interests involved, follow the money and do the research yourselves.
Ask yourself why they refuse to do research comparing the health of vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations
Ask yourself why there are government vaccine injury compensation boards who pay out millions each year if vaccines are safe.
Ask yourself why vaccines do not have to go through the same thorough tesing regime required for other drugs.
Ask yourself why the vaccine manufacturers cannot, by law be sued for any vaccine injury.
Ask yourself why only this year, the Italian government asked the Corvela corporation to test various vaccinations and their results showed not only that many of the antibody inducing ingredients were missing, but there were many toxins present which should not have been. (references available).
Finally, In 2016 the following paper was published in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology, authored jointly by staff from the Canadian Public Health Agency and the US CDC., the authors noted that measles samples from 38% of the cases tested from the 2015 US outbreaks had come from vaccines . The live, attenuated measles viruses used in vaccines had made either the person they were given to sick with measles, or spread to other people who then got measles.
People deserve the right to choose. They deserve the right to safe vaccines if they so wish and those who so choose, deserve the right to say no.

If you had bothered to read it properly you would know that it was an article on the NHS website reporting DANISH research ,carried out in DENMARK and therefore subject to no Uk influence whatsoever

and no doubt free of any influence from the worldwide pharmaceutical industry either.

oh, if only it were that simple.
Perhaps the rate of Measles is going up, (as is the rate of Autism and allergies), just as the rate of vaccines given is also going up, I don’t disagree with that, however I stand by what I said earlier, the short term effectiveness of Measles vaccines is probably a major contributory factor because it is reducing the number of people benefiting from the lifetime immunity provided by catching the disease.

Done this one - the problem is that as the huge benefit of vaccination is pretty much accepted by the bulk of the medical profession you would never get such a trial past a modern ethics committee.

Even if you could, you would then have great difficulty interpreting the results because the incidence of diseases which are vaccinated against in the general population is much, much lower than it would be without vaccination.

So, yes, given the low incidence of, or chance of contracting measles you might argue that, for an individual, any toxicity from the vaccination would mean that you were better off avoiding it - but you cannot extrapolate that to the conclusion that one should stop vaccinating the whole population.

These two kind-of go together.

Vaccination can cause side effects and harm - no-one is exactly claiming otherwise (the test should be whether vaccination provides an overall benefit, not whether it is totally, 100% safe in all circumstances).

Just about any adverse effect following a vaccination will be blamed on the vaccination (even more so if there is a chance of financial gain). Given the ubiquitous nature of vaccination programmes that’s probably going gto be a lot of claims, it would tie any drug company up in litigation, hence the need for this to be handled by an outside agency, not because of vaccines inherent flaws but because the benefit and harms of vaccination programmes need to be assessed over whole populations whereas the law tends to look at individual cases.

Humans are just very bad at assessing this sort of risk - we worry disproportionately about the risks of vaccination (10’s of deaths, perhaps, per annum in the US) and air travel (500 deaths worldwide in 2018) but happily get into a car and drive (over 37,000 deaths in the US in 2017). Heck even getting too involved with the police in the USA is more risky than vaccination (987 people were shot and killed by US police in 2017, most innocent bystanders, some even the individual who called the police in the first place).

They are tested and regulated in the same or similar ways to other medicines.

Nothing is completely safe 100% of the time for 100% of patients.

And debunked here and here - and not, as far as I can see asked by the Italian government to conduct research, nor were “various vaccines” tested, just one.

Again - your point is? If the incidence of measles is so low that virtually the only exposure is from vaccination it is not surprising that a large percentage of the very low number of cases will be found to be virus from the vaccine

1 Like

Apparently the Danish study found lower autism rates in vaccinated children

in response to this, and in reply to Paul’s first point in his recent response, it would be very simple to do a study of long term outcome of vaccinated versus unvaccinated - quite simply because there are many unvaccinated children out there - not just those unvaccinated through choice, but those unvaccinated for other medical reasons, or for religous reasons - the Amish for example. A retrospective study could be carried out which would not require approval of an ethics committee.
I remain convinced that the reluctance for the ‘mainstream medical establishment’ to perform such a study is that they fear the resulting outcome.

Yes, a retrospective study could be carried out - but such studies are only hypothesis generating, not provative.

so if you look at the Amish for example, I am led to believe that their incidence of Autism is practically zero. The amish do not vaccinate. Perhaps this is not ‘provative’ as you say Paul, but I put it to you that it would be a very blinkered person who refuses to consider that there may be a link - and that it is worthy of further investigation.

So, the Amish are renowned for their rejection of all things modern - including a lot of modern medicine. Do you not think that the low incidence of Autism could be due to significant under-reporting?

In fact the Amish are a very poor choice for a retrospective study - you would want to pick two groups as similar as possible apart from vaccination or not - and the Amish just are not very similar to other groups.

3 Likes

like I said, a retrospective study would be simple and quick to do whether with the Amish or any other unvaccinated group.
So why not do it?
I think we can guess why.

Because it would be a waste of time?

1 Like

you are welcome to your conclusion Paul.

But it is not just my conclusion but the conclusion of just about the whole of the scientific community.

Yes, you would counter that’s because we are all blinkered and refuse to see facts.

Ultimately though - it is for the anti-vac crowd to support and fund such a study, it is not the job of conventional medics to go out and prove your case for you. But you need it to be scientifically and statistically rigorous - which is where anti-vac “research” normally falls flat on its face and why it is mostly ignored, it’s just such low quality work.

1 Like