How Dangerous are the Measles?Prior to the measles vaccine in 1962, there were between 400 and 500 measles-related deaths reported in the U.S per year. That figure comes out to 0.000263% of a U.S population of 190 million at the time. But, while it was extremely unlikely for someone in the general population to die from the disease, how deadly was the measles for someone who actually got the disease? According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), there were 432 measles-related related deaths based on 503,182 measles cases that year. That translates to a percentage of 0.09%. What about death rates from measles cases during the post-vaccine days? Since 1962, there have been three epidemics of measles outbreaks in vaccinated populations here in the U.S: 1970-1972, 1976-1978. In the most recent epidemic from 1989-1991, 55,000 measles cases that year resulted in about 123 deaths. That means 0.22% of measles victims died. Or, you could also say that 99.78% of those with the measles did not die. Either way you look at these numbers, pre or post-vaccine, they hardly warrant the fear, attention, and scare-mongering we are reading about and watching in our mainstream news today.
Measles and Other Diseases in the Early 20th Century
When there Really was Something to Worry AboutThe CDC, WHO, and pharmaceutical companies who want to promote vaccinations would like us all to believe the return of the measles epidemics will result in death rates of the Pre-World-War II days. We've seen the most recent data prior to the first vaccinations, so let's see how it actually compares to the earlier part of the 20th century. According to CDC, in 1920, there were 469,924 measles cases resulting in 7,575 deaths. That is equivalent to 1.6% of the population. Yes, back in 1920, measles was something to be feared, as was a host of other deadly diseases such as scarlet fever, typhoid fever, diphtheria, pertussis, and flu. One interesting fact: There has never been a vaccine for either Scarlet or Typhoid fever, yet both of these diseases declined in parallel fashion to the diseases we vaccinate for today. Imagine how much better off we'd be with a Typhoid and Scarlet fever vaccine. :)
Worldwide Measles Mortality Compared to U.S
The CDC reports that world-wide, there are over 146,000 deaths from the measles each year. They go on to admit, that 95% of these deaths occur in impoverished countries with inadequate nutrition, sanitation, and health care. In a population of 6 billion people, 146,000 deaths translates to .0024%, a death rate that is significantly lower than what it was in the U.S prior to advanced living conditions. So, even the most ardent vaccine-promoter should openly acknowledge that improved living conditions played the most significant role in reducing mortality from deadly and infectious diseases in America. But, if we could completely eradicate these diseases altogether with vaccines, wouldn't that be even better? That would be true only if we could prove the vaccine worked as advertised.
Measles Outbreaks Disproves Theory of Vaccines and "Herd" Immunity Myth
The Wikipedia chart below which originated from the CDC website is often used in attempt to show how effective the measles vaccines were in reducing measles deaths. While the data is accurate, pro-vaccine advocates have a couple of obvious problems to explain: One, the chart only goes back to 1944 when the death toll from measles had already experienced its largest decline. See the chart above which goes back to 1900 to gain a fuller and more truthful perspective on the decreasing mortality rate from measles. Two, the chart shows that measles deaths had already taken a huge dip just prior to the introduction of the vaccine, from nearly 800 to 400! But, there is a third problem that presents, perhaps, the biggest dilemma of all for vaccine supporters: Look at the steep drop in measles deaths from the mid to late 1960s. Measles death rates made their biggest drop long before the majority of us were vaccinated. So much for the perceived idea of "herd" immunity among pro-vaxxers. The CDC states that the U.S target rate for vaccination is 90% or above. The mortality rate from measles was reduced by four-times before coverage rates were anywhere near that level.
Measles Outbreaks have Nothing to do with the Unvaccinated
Vaccination coverage rates have little to do with increased outbreaks of the diseases, proving the 'herd' immunity concept of vaccine coverage to be a mistaken myth.
Having looked at the actual risks of the disease, what is the reason for the hype and hysteria from our media about getting the measles? This has everything to do with politics. It is primarily an attack on the anti-vaccination movement. Sadly, the masses have been led to believe that the unvaccinated are to blame anytime an infectious disease outbreak occurs. We saw with Ebola that in most cases, advanced societies are equipped to handle these diseases without vaccinations. If and when the Ebola vaccine is invented, it will be given all the credit for eradicating a disease that would have never spread, anyway. This type of panic over measles, however, presents real danger to our freedom. No single person should be forced to inject something into their bodies against their own will. This is what the vaccine pushers are striving for. It's okay if they want to believe in vaccines, but it is important that we are not taking away human rights from those who choose to think for themselves.
Measles Vaccines Research is Based on False Assumptions
Peer Reviewed Science can still be Junk Science
While articles from websites like WHO and CDC do use facts to bolster their support of vaccinations, they are always based on the premise that vaccines are 100% effective. The chart below is from an article published in the CDC making estimates of how many lives, illnesses, and dollars were saved by vaccination due to an initiative for boosted coverage in children from 1994 to 2012. Of course, these figures are based on the premise that without the vaccine, these events from these diseases would have occurred at the rates described. I am unsure of where they got these numbers? They only say that these estimates are derived from models? If so, what models? What historical data, facts and statistics are being used to derive these models? Of course, we already know that these "models" are based on the assumption that vaccines are 100% effective. Are they based on worldwide figures or previous levels of disease in the unvaccinated population? Either way, we've proven that mortality and serious illness from these diseases declined for other reasons, and have no reason to believe they would occur again at the levels estimated. Thus, there is no merit behind this assumption. In fact, it is blatantly false and misleading. The United States has seen measles cases of up to 25% in the fully vaccinated in populations with 92-97% coverage rates. Did the CDC article consider this in their figures over their immunization initiative? If you think it's practically impossible to get the measles if you are vaccinated, then read this: Cases not Limited to the Unvaccinated
More Junk Science Based on same False Premise
Presence of Antibody doesn't prove Immunity
A study in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, Duration of Humoral Immunity to Common Viral and Vaccine Antigens proved the presence of long-term antibodies due to vaccinations in subjects. The purpose of this study was to help determine the length of time vaccines remain effective and when booster shots might be necessary. Unfortunately, the immune system (as the authors do admit), is not this simple. The presence of antibodies doesn't guarantee you won't get the disease. The human immune system is much more complicated than that.
It's common sense: Altering the body's natural immune system by unnaturally invoking only part of a disease is not the same as getting the disease. The only way to get real life-long immunity from a disease is by getting the real thing. As we have proven, the disease itself is less risky than driving a car every day. Even if the measles vaccine could be proven to be 100% effective (Which it cannot), we have yet to address the real, proven and unproven side-effects.
For vaccines against measles to be truly worthwhile, those who support them have to be able to prove a net gain in lives that are saved. This is something that nobody can possibly do. The burden of proof should be upon those who are making the claim that vaccines are necessary. Until, they can do this, they have absolutely no business suggesting to the rest of us what decisions we should make regarding our own health.
Now then, shall we begin discussing the actual risks of the vaccine?