“The Earth is in trouble.” “The Earth is dying” “The Earth has only 30 years left”
Have you ever encountered such statements? Something is going on that will have a large effect on all of us.. But the Earth?
The Earth will be just fine. It’s been around for billions of year and will be around for billions more. The Earth knows how to survive. The Earth knows how to prosper. The Earth knows how to thrive.
But do we? Will we be around to thrive with the Earth? Will the Earth be happy with us being here?
Any way you look at it, the Earth keeps humming along, keeps growing and evolving and does just fine. But the inhabitants probably won’t find their lives as happy and comfortable as they’re used to.
Thus, the question arises: how can I live on the Earth in a way that co-operates with the Earth? How can I know what needs to be done to assist the Earth as what is coming starts to happen? How can I live in balance on the Earth and know what to do (and how and when to do it) as these changes start to happen? How can I be a true friend to the Earth?
That last question is important. If you don’t understand that the Earth is totally aware of everything happening on the surface (and underground, and in the atmosphere) then you really need to give up old beliefs and undertake to realize that the Earth is our wise host and humans are the (not-so-wise) guests.
Just like you are conscious and aware of your environment and your circle of friends and family, so too is the Earth conscious and aware of her environment and her circle of friends and family. A very long time ago, humans were able to communicate with the Earth and understand the Earth just like you communicate with and understand your circle of friends and family. Talking with the Earth meant talking with the Earth, just like I can talk to you. Now, once again, some humans are gaining the old wisdom. And becoming truly friends of the Earth and able to assist the Earth in ways that have been lost for a long, long time.
Anyone can become a true friend of the Earth. All it takes is desire. Once that intense desire is there, the next logical step is to find what humans are capable of – what YOU are capable of – that has been lost for many centuries.
The Earth is all about balance. Whatever is done to the Earth, all of the Earth’s processes work to restore the natural balance. (And not just some things –everything!) When humans speculate and guess about ways to make the Earth produce more and more, all Earth processes are put to work balancing out whatever is done.
A simple example is insects “destroying” a crop. What kind of balance is it when insects descend on a field and eat everything? Why would the Earth do that, if the Earth is all about balance?
The “problem” is that humans see from the human point of view. They rarely make an effort to understand the point of view of the Earth, which is a much bigger picture than people let themselves see.
Farmers want to make a profit. The vast majority of farmers have the mentality of “mining the Earth” so that they can make a profit. (No judgement here – that’s just the way farms have evolved.) Healthy soil, healthy plants and healthy plant consumers are the least of their concerns. Vast acreages of a single plant type are the desired goal. When traveling in the midwestern USA, you see such acreages all around – mostly corn or soybeans.
But monocultures are not balanced. Nature works best when there is a community of different plants supporting each other. What happens to vast fields of one single plant type can be thought of as similar to what happens to royalty who marry within their own family. They don’t allow outsiders. This causes plants to struggle and grow weak because of the lack of a supporting community of multiple plant types. When plants become weak, they attract insects.
Insects can be considered predators and the plants are prey. It is well-known that predators don’t go after the strong members of a prey group. They attack the weakest, which culls out the weaker members and leaves only the strong to continue propogating.
Insects provide balance by removing the weak plants leaving only strong plants to propogate. But in a monoculture, they are ALL weak plants. And weak plants also cannot contribute to the health of the soil. Thus, the soil gets worse, the plants get weaker and the cycle continues. Eventually, we will end up with food shortages.
That is just one example of how human ignorance can create crises.
Note that this is NOT a crisis from the point of view of the Earth, although it may be seen as a crisis by humans. And whose fault are such crises?
Not the Earth.
So how do we work with the Earth to become a true friend of the Earth? How do we become aware of what is happening on the Earth? How do we actually communicate with the Earth? And get our own answers of how to live in such balance that we don’t attract crises? Is it even possible?
The answer is unequivocally YES. Anyone can do it. YOU can do it.
Monsanto’s new owner, Bayer, has been slammed with judgments in the first three Roundup lawsuits to go to trial. The verdicts, which have sided with plaintiffs in all cases so far, have found not only that Roundup herbicide caused the plaintiffs’ cancers but also that Monsanto engaged in malice, oppression or fraud in their attempts to cover up Roundup’s toxicity.1
Some of the evidence brought to light during the trials has been particularly eye-opening, including internal emails showing that Monsanto paid an industry front group for the favor of publishing pro-glyphosate media, right around the time the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined it to be a probable carcinogen.2
Monsanto paid front group for glyphosate-favorable content
The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) is a nonprofit organization that claims to be a “pro-science consumer advocacy organization” with the focus of publically supporting “evidence-based science and medicine.” Their website states:3
“We do not represent any industry. We were created to be the science alternative to “news” that is often little more than hype based on exaggerated findings. We help policymakers see past scaremongers and activist groups who have targeted GMOs, vaccines, conventional agriculture, nuclear power, natural gas, and ‘chemicals,’ while peddling health scares and fad diets.
We fight back against activists who have attacked the credibility of the overwhelming consensus of academic and private sector scientists who dispute their claims, undermining the integrity of the scientific enterprise.”
ACSH also claims to be funded mostly by readers, but their financial statements do not reveal who, exactly, their more than $1 million in yearly revenue comes from.4 In 2015, however, internal emails revealed that Monsanto contributed to ACSH, with impeccable timing, as IARC’s glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) was set to be released.
The emails were first revealed as evidence during Dewayne Johnson’s Roundup lawsuit. The trial, the first to be heard, ended with Monsanto being ordered to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, although the award was later reduced to $78 million.
The evidence made another appearance during the third Roundup case, in which a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, claimed they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The jury decided in the Pilliods’ favor, ordering the chemical giant to pay $2 billion to its victims.
In the emails, Dr. Daniel Goldstein, the head of medical sciences and outreach at Monsanto, wrote to colleagues about ACSH’s value to the company, stating there was “some money set aside for IARC” and Monsanto “should go ahead and make a contribution” pointing out that they had “dozens of pro-GMO and glyphosate postings” in the prior year.5 The colleagues still weren’t convinced, so Goldstein then wrote:6
“While I would love to have more friends and more choices, we don’t have a lot of supporters and can’t afford to lose the few we have … You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH: They are working with us to respond if needed to IARC …”
Days before IARC’s ruling, ACSH asks for Monsanto’s support
IARC’s report determining glyphosate as a probable carcinogen was released in March 2015. Just days prior, Gilbert Ross of ACSH (who spent time in prison for defrauding New York’s Medicaid program of about $8 million7) wrote to Goldstein, requesting Monsanto’s support and stating:8
“… However it does get frustrating at times when we feel as though we can’t count on the unrestricted support of a company like Monsanto — whose products and technologies are constantly vilified by activists groups but heralded by ACSH … As our revered, departed president Beth Whelan would often lament on these occasions, “If a company like X (X = Monsanto in this case) won’t support us, then who will?”
In response, Goldstein states that Monsanto will contribute to ACSH, adding “definitely count us in!!” No dollar amount is given, so it’s unclear just how much Monsanto paid for ACSH’s continued defenses, but even a cursory glance at their site suggests it has worked in Monsanto’s favor.
ACSH attacked IARC’s findings as “scientific fraud,” going so far as to call the cancer agency a “fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring people than identifying actual health threats.”9 ACSH has articles defending glyphosate’s safety in terms of cancer, for bees and even in your food.10
“If You Accept Science, You Accept Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer,” one article reads.11 Yet, more than 13,400 cases are currently pending against Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018 for about $63 billion, alleging that Monsanto’s Roundup caused the plaintiffs’ cancer and the company failed to warn consumers about cancer risks.
As mentioned, in the first three cases to go to trial, jury verdicts have overwhelmingly favored the plaintiffs, leaving Bayer saddled with billions in damages.
ACSH internal documents reveal heavy corporate funding
In 2013, leaked ACSH documents12 obtained by Mother Jones, an investigative nonprofit news organization, showed ACSH, while claiming to be independent, relies heavily on corporate funding as well as directly “solicits donations from these industry sources around specific issues.”13
From July 2012 to December 2012, 58 percent of the group’s donations came from corporations and large private foundations, including Syngenta, 3M, tobacco giant Altria, Bayer Cropscience, Procter and Gamble, Coca-Cola and more.
“ACSH’s donors and the potential backers the group has been targeting comprise a who’s-who of energy, agriculture, cosmetics, food, soda, chemical, pharmaceutical and tobacco corporations,” Mother Jones reported, explaining:14
“From the start, ACSH has faced questions about its funding … By the early 1980s, ACSH’s donors included Dow, Monsanto, American Cyanamid, Mobil Foundation, Chevron, and Bethlehem Steel.
In 1984, Georgia-Pacific, a leading formaldehyde maker, funded a friend-of-the-court brief filed by ACSH in an industry-backed lawsuit that overturned a ban on formaldehyde insulation … Initially, ACSH disclosed its donors, and it was obvious that the group embraced numerous causes connected to its funders.
ACSH defended the chemical Alar, used to regulate the growth of apples — and accepted donations from Uniroyal, which manufactured and sold Alar. It also opposed new mandatory nutrition labeling requirements — and pocketed money from Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg Co., Nestle USA, and the National Soft Drink Association.”
Further, ACSH is just one front group that’s funded by Monsanto for the purpose of spreading positive PR about its deadly products. In one Roundup trial, plaintiffs’ attorneys said in a briefing:15,16
“Monsanto quietly funnels money to ‘think tanks’ such as the ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and the ‘American Council on Science and Health,’ organizations intended to shame scientists and highlight information helpful to Monsanto and other chemical producers.
… The Court, and certainly the attorneys here, will recall similar ‘institutes’ and ‘academies’ funded by the tobacco industry in the past. Neither GLP nor ACSH list Monsanto as donors/supporters; but Monsanto cannot deny it funds them.”
Meanwhile, despite the clear corporate funding and industry bias, USA Today continues to publish columns by ACSH, without disclosing their corporate funding.
In 2017, in a letter to the editors of USA Today, more than two dozen doctors and health, environmental, labor and public interest groups called on the news outlet to stop publishing ACSH content or at least require that it be identified for what it truly is,17 but so far they have declined to do so.18
Monsanto hides behind American Chemistry Council
Monsanto allocated about $17 million in one year to discredit IARC scientists who spoke out against glyphosate. The information came from a deposition of Monsanto executive Sam Murphey, who now works for Bayer. U.S. Right to Know revealed:19
“… [I]mmediately after the IARC classification of glyphosate — and continuing to this day — the cancer scientists became the subject of sweeping condemnation from an assortment of organizations, individuals and even some U.S. lawmakers.”
The company was so intent on pushing glyphosate’s supposed safety that in January 2017, the American Chemistry Council (of which Monsanto is a member) formed a front group called Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research (CAPHR),20 the express purpose of which is to discredit the IARC and seek to reform the IARC Monographs Program, which evaluates and determines the carcinogenicity of chemicals.21 According to CAPHR:22
“In particular, CAPHR promotes reform of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monographs Program and brings to light the deficiencies, misinformation, and consequences associated with its work.
In doing so, CAPHR seeks to challenge the troubling practice of producing questionable scientific evaluations and promoting those evaluations as the basis for unjustified public policy or commercial decisions.”
Monsanto also demanded IARC members turn over documents related to glyphosate while calling the IARC findings “junk science.”23 It’s well worth noting that the IARC’s scientists are considered elite independent experts, culled from well-respected institutions all over the world.
Some of the IARC members who worked on the glyphosate findings said they felt “intimidated” by the backlash but stated they would not back down, even in the face of industry assault.24
Murphey also suggested that a Reuters reporter write an article accusing the chairman of the IARC working group on glyphosate of concealing data. The reporter wrote the story, which was picked up by media outlets around the globe, even though the allegations against the IARC chairman were false.25
Monsanto ‘hit list’ revealed
Monsanto, in covering all their bases, also compiled hundreds of names and other personal information about journalists, politicians and scientists, including their opinions about pesticides and genetic engineering.26
Monsanto’s so-called “stakeholder mapping project”27 was first uncovered in France, but now it appears Monsanto likely had multiple lists to track people in countries throughout Europe. Matthias Berninger, Bayer’s head of public affairs and sustainability, told reporters, “It’s safe to say that other countries in Europe were affected by lists … I assume that all EU member states could potentially be affected.”28
In May 2019, French prosecutors said they had opened an investigation into the lists of private information, while Bayer hired law firm Sidley Austin LLP for a similar investigation, which began informing people who were stalked by Monsanto of the issue in late May 2019.29
Despite the great lengths Monsanto went to try to convince the world that glyphosate is safe, it seems the writing is on the wall for this ubiquitous chemical and its maker. While the extent of its toxicity continues to be revealed, you can reduce your exposure by not using this herbicide in your backyard and choosing organic food, which hasn’t been exposed to the nearly 300 million pounds of glyphosate used in the U.S. annually.30
When you think of industries with the worst environmental footprints, the agricultural and automotive industries may come to mind. Yet, the pharmaceutical sector has received little attention in terms of how their manufacturing processes are affecting the Earth.
An eye-opening study published in the Journal of Cleaner Production has changed that, however, revealing the carbon footprint of the global pharmaceutical industry — and it’s a large one.1
One of the study’s authors, Lotfi Belkhir, associate professor and chair of eco-entrepreneurship at McMaster University in Ontario, stated in The Conversation, “Rarely does mention of the pharmaceutical industry conjure up images of smoke stacks, pollution and environmental damage … One immediate and striking result is that the pharmaceutical sector is far from green.”2
Big Pharma has higher emissions than the automotive industry
Of the more than 200 companies that make up the global pharmaceutical market, only 15 reported their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions since 2012. The researchers analyzed emissions based on each $1 million in revenue in 2015, as a larger company is generally going to create greater emissions than a smaller one.
In evaluating emissions intensity accordingly, the study found the pharmaceutical industry releases 48.55 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per million dollars, which works out to about 55% greater emissions than the automotive industry, which came in at 31.4 tons of CO2e per million dollars in 2015. According to Belkhir:3
“We restricted our analysis to the direct emissions generated by the companies’ operations and to the indirect emissions generated by the electricity purchased by these companies from their respective utilities companies.
The total global emissions of the pharma sector amounts to about 52 megatonnes of CO2e in 2015, more than the 46.4 megatonnes of CO2e generated by the automotive sector in the same year.”
What’s more, the pharmaceutical industry generates more emissions despite being a much smaller industry compared to the automotive sector. The study calculated Big Pharma to be 28% smaller, but 13% more polluting, than the automotive industry.4
Which pharmaceutical companies are the most polluting?
There were wide variations in just how polluting different pharmaceutical companies were. Eli Lilly, which had 77.3 tons of CO2e per million, had 5.5 times more emissions than Roche (14 tons CO2e per million). Procter & Gamble also had five times greater emissions than Johnson & Johnson, Belkhir reported, even though they had similar revenues and produce similar products.
Bayer AG came in worst of all — by a landslide. The company had an emission intensity of 189 tons CO2e per million, which is more than four times the emissions than the overall pharmaceutical industry. Belkhir explained:5
“In trying to explain this incredibly large deviation, we found that Bayer’s revenues derive from pharmaceutical products, medical equipment and agricultural commodities. While Bayer reports its financial revenues separately for each division, it lumps together the emissions from all the divisions.
The company also reports and tracks its emission intensity in terms of tonnes of CO2e produced for each tonne of manufactured goods, whether fertilizer or Aspirin, for example. This level of opacity makes it … impossible to assess the true environmental performance of these kind of companies.”
Dangerous levels of antibiotics contaminate rivers worldwide
The featured study only looked at greenhouse gas emissions, yet the pharmaceutical industry emits other forms of pollution as well. In the first global study of its kind, researchers from the University of York in England tested for 14 antibiotics in rivers spread across 72 countries worldwide.
The results, which were presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) in Helsinki, Finland, found antibiotics in 65% of the sites tested.6 The antibiotic found most often was trimethoprim, a medication commonly used to treat urinary tract infections, which was detected at 307 of the 711 sites tested.
Ciproflaxacin, meanwhile, was the drug most often found at levels that exceeded safety thresholds; 51 of the sites contained ciproflaxacin at potentially dangerous levels. Metronidazole, an antibiotic often used for skin and mouth infections, was also found at levels that exceeded the “safe” threshold — by up to 300 times at one site in Bangladesh.7
Aside from Bangladesh, other areas where antibiotics were most frequently detected at levels that exceeded safety thresholds included Kenya, Ghana, Pakistan and Nigeria. “The study revealed that high-risk sites were typically adjacent to wastewater treatment systems, waste or sewage dumps and in some areas of political turmoil, including the Israeli and Palestinian border,” according to a University of York news release.8
That being said, concerning levels of antibiotics were also found in rivers in Europe, North America and South America, showing that the contamination is a global problem. Study co-author Alistair Boxall, an environmental scientist at the University of York, noted that antibiotic contamination in waterways could be contributing to antibiotic resistance around the globe:9
“The results are quite eye opening and worrying, demonstrating the widespread contamination of river systems around the world with antibiotic compounds. Many scientists and policy makers now recognize the role of the natural environment in the antimicrobial resistance problem. Our data show that antibiotic contamination of rivers could be an important contributor.
Solving the problem is going to be a mammoth challenge and will need investment in infrastructure for waste and wastewater treatment, tighter regulation and the cleaning up of already contaminated sites.”
Drug manufacturers leading to the development of superbugs
Massive amounts of pharmaceutical waste are entering waterways near drug manufacturing facilities and, according to research published in the journal Infection, resulting in the development of multidrug-resistant pathogens.10
In November 2016, researchers from Germany’s University of Leipzig collected water samples from “the direct environment of bulk drug manufacturing facilities, the vicinity of two sewage treatment plants, the Musi River and habitats in Hyderabad [South India] and nearby villages.”11
Twenty-eight sampling sites were surveyed, and the water samples were analyzed for 25 anti-infective pharmaceuticals as well as multidrug-resistant pathogens and certain resistance genes.12 All of the samples were contaminated with antimicrobials, including high concentrations of moxifloxacin, voriconazole and fluconazole as well as increased concentrations of eight other antibiotics in area sewers.
Some of the samples contained antimicrobials at levels up to 5,500 times higher than the environmental regulation limit.13 What’s more, more than 95% of the samples also contained multidrug-resistant bacteria and fungi.14
The researchers called this contamination with antimicrobial pharmaceuticals “unprecedented” and blamed it on “insufficient wastewater management by bulk drug manufacturing facilities, which seems to be associated with the selection and dissemination of carbapenemase-producing pathogens.”15
Big Pharma is destroying India’s water
In 2016, the nonprofit foundation Changing Markets issued a report on “Impacts of Pharmaceutical Pollution on Communities and Environment in India,” on behalf of Nordea Asset Management, a major investment firm in Sweden.16
According to this report, the severe water pollution problem in India can be, to a significant extent, traced back to the generic “bulk” drug industry.
Between 2010 and 2015, the number of contaminated waterways in India more than doubled, and by 2015, more than half of the nation’s rivers were polluted. India’s low cost of manufacturing has lured a number of drug companies to set up shop, congregating in the city of Hyderabad and along the Andhra Pradesh coastline. The report states:17
“The social and environmental costs of the development of Hyderabad’s bulk drug industry are plain to see in the neighborhoods and villages surrounding the industrial areas, and have been well-documented over a period of decades.
However, the response from both the central government and the state authorities has been woefully inadequate, not to say complicit, and over the years, irresponsible drug manufacturers have enjoyed free rein to continue pumping vast quantities of untreated or inadequately treated pharmaceutical waste into the environment.
Inhabitants living and working in the vicinity of drug manufacturing units in Hyderabad, Visakhapatnam, and other locations have borne the brunt of this.It has affected their livelihoods in the form of livestock deaths and decreased agricultural yields, and damaged their health, with reported impacts ranging from higher abortion rates to birth defects and stunted growth in children, as well as greater incidence of skin diseases.”
Antibiotic resistance is also on the rise in India, where 58,000 newborn babies died from drug-resistant infections in 2013. The pollution caused by pharmaceutical manufacturing is noted as one of the often-overlooked causes of antibiotic resistance.18
Even the fish supply is drugged
Puget Sound, which is located along the northwestern coat of Washington, is yet another body of water being inundated with contaminants from wastewater plant effluent. Previous research by the U.S. Geological Survey found that effluent from wastewater treatment plants that receive discharge from drug manufacturers had 10 to 1,000 times higher concentrations of pharmaceuticals than those that do not.19
A study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries’ Northwest Fisheries Science Center also detected 81 chemical compounds in Puget Sound water, including the antidepressant Prozac and the diabetes medication metformin.20,21
The researchers then examined fish native to the Sound (juvenile Chinook salmon and Pacific staghorn sculpin) and detected 42 of the chemical compounds in their tissue, some at levels high enough to affect growth, reproduction and/or behavior. It’s unknown whether consuming fish contaminated with these drugs pose risks to humans, but there are likely risks to the fish themselves.
Separate research, for instance, has linked exposure to the drug metformin to the occurrence of intersex fish, where male fish show evidence of feminization.22 A report by UK-based environmental charity CHEM Trust further highlighted the issues of pharmaceutical pollution in marine life.23
They noted that 613 pharmaceuticals have been found in the environment globally, but this is likely a vast underestimate, since analytical detection methods aren’t available for most medications in use. Still, the report found:24
23 pharmaceuticals, including antidepressants, sedatives, antibiotics, painkillers and anti-cancer drugs, in perch fish in Sweden
Ethinyl estradiol from birth control pills in Baltic Sea salmon
Can you make a dent in pharmaceutical pollution?
Curbing the environmental damage being caused by pharmaceutical manufacturing pollution is an urgent global effort, but you can take small steps to reduce your own pharmaceutical footprint. For starters, choose organic animal foods, as the agriculture industry is one of the largest consumers of drugs such as antibiotics.
If you take medications, use them only when necessary and do not flush unused drugs down your toilet or pour them down the drain. Many areas offer drug take-back programs that allow you to dispose of medications at designated spots in your community (sometimes a local law enforcement agency or pharmacy). If such a program is not available in your area, you can dispose of medication in your trash.
It’s recommended that you remove pills from packaging, crush them and seal them in a plastic bag with some water and sawdust, cat litter or coffee grounds (this is to discourage any animals or a child from consuming the contents).25 In addition, install a water filter on your tap to ensure your drinking water is pure.
Ultimately, however, the pharmaceutical industry is who should be held responsible for cleaning up the massive amounts of pollution they’re sending into the environment. As Belkhir said, “Healing people [a generous statement for most drugs] is no justification for killing the planet.”26
This year, the fearmongering about measles has reached epidemic proportions in America. A day doesn’t go by without media outlets publishing angry articles and editorials spewing hatred toward a tiny minority of parents with unvaccinated children, who are being blamed for measles outbreaks.1,2,3 The remedy is always a call to track down, persecute and punish any parent whose child is not vaccinated.4,5,6
Some state and federal lawmakers are reacting to the relentless fearmongering by proposing to severely restrict the medical vaccine exemption and eliminate all religious and conscientious belief exemptions in state vaccine laws.7,8,9,10 These exemptions, which help prevent vaccine injuries and deaths, also protect parental rights, civil liberties and the ethical principle of informed consent to medical risk taking.11
Government, WHO, medical trade, Pharma, media say MMR vaccine is safe, effective
The U.S. government, the World Health Organization, medical trade associations, the pharmaceutical industry and multinational communications corporations all agree that the measles virus is extremely dangerous, the MMR vaccine is “very” safe and effective, and all children must get two doses of MMR vaccine to meet the goal of eradicating measles from the world by 2020.12,13,14,15
While most of the public conversation in the past two decades has been focused on children, who have suffered convulsions, encephalitis and encephalopathy after MMR vaccine reactions and have become chronically ill and disabled,16,17,18,19,20,21,22 there hasn’t been much discussion about measles vaccine effectiveness or what measles was like before and after the vaccine was licensed in the mid-20th century.
This is a special report on measles vaccine failures based on evidence published in the scientific and medical literature that is not being discussed in public conversations about measles vaccine policies and mandatory vaccination laws.
Measles in US in 1950s: Mild and 90% not reported
I had measles in the 1950s, along with my sister and half the kids in my class. I remember staying home from school, wearing dark glasses in the house and eating chicken noodle soup and orange Popsicles, while waiting impatiently for the spots to disappear so I could go back to school and see my friends again. The same thing happened with chickenpox, but that was way more uncomfortable because even with calamine lotion, I kept itching when I shouldn’t have.
There were 555,000 reported cases of measles in 1955 with 345 associated deaths in a U.S. population of 165 million people that year.23,24 Actually, though, an estimated 3 to 5 million Americans every year got wild type measles, usually before age 15.25,26,27 If 3.5 million Americans got measles in 1955 and 345 died, the measles death rate was about 1 in 10,000.
Most cases like mine were mild with a fever, sore throat and rash that went away in a week. Back then, few mothers called a doctor for a common childhood infection every child got, and 90% of cases were not reported to the government.28
In fact, if you look at vital statistics data from the early 20th century, although measles can cause complications like pneumonia, ear infections and brain inflammation, measles infections have never been a leading cause of death or disability in this country.29 By the mid-20th century there were antibiotics to address many complications, and measles was not considered a big problem by most parents and clinicians in the U.S. or Europe, especially in healthy children.30
1962: ‘Moderate severity and low fatality’ but let’s eradicate it
In 1962, famous microbe hunters Drs. Alexander Langmuir and DA Henderson, who designed smallpox eradication campaigns, contemporaneously described measles as a “self-limiting infection of short duration, moderate severity and low fatality” that has “maintained a remarkably stable biological balance over the centuries.”31
Langmuir calmly observed that “the decline in measles mortality demonstrates the degree to which we have adapted to this balance and have learned to live with this parasite.” But then, boldly, proudly and with absolute confidence, he proclaimed:
To those who ask me, “Why do you wish to eradicate measles, I reply with the same answer that Hillary used when asked why he wished to climb Mt. Everest. He said, “Because it is there.” To this may be added, “…. and it can be done.”
Langmuir and Henderson were giving a heads up to the medical community that a measles vaccine was coming out soon and that public health officials were going to use it not just to control measles, but to eradicate the virus from the earth.
The “because we can” eradication action plan would apply the same search and destroy strategies used against the smallpox virus to wipe out the much less deadly but far more contagious measles virus. Like with smallpox, that action plan hinged on using the bodies of infants and children injected with a vaccine to try to drive the virus into extinction.
Public health officials, pharmaceutical companies and politicians were well aware that for a century they had convinced parents to offer their children for conscription in a war on smallpox and polio, and it was logical to assume they could wage the same kind of war on the measles virus, too.
In 1962, Congress passed and President John F. Kennedy signed the Vaccination Assistance Act (PL 87-868), known today as the Section 317 grant program.
The act, which was part of a broader federal government initiative to provide health care to underserved communities, gave money to the states to wage intensive polio and DPT vaccination campaigns targeting young children. The act was amended in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson to include money for measles vaccine campaigns.32,33
In March 1963, the U.S. surgeon general announced two measles vaccines had been approved for licensure, an inactivated measles vaccine developed by Pfizer and a live virus vaccine developed by Merck.34
In that statement, the surgeon general once again admitted there was a low death rate for measles in the US. compared to underdeveloped countries. He reassured the nation that “rarely would there appear to be a need in the United States for mass community immunization programs.” He urged doctors to simply offer the new measles vaccines at well baby visits.
Before vaccine, mothers transferred measles antibodies to fetus
At the time, doctors knew that women, who had recovered from wild type measles as children, passively transferred measles antibodies to a developing fetus when they were pregnant so newborns were protected from measles during the first year or more of life.35,36 Back then, most children did not get measles until they were between 3 and 10 years old and that gave them durable, long-lasting immunity to the disease.37,38
The immune systems of infants do not function the same way as for older children and adults.39 From the very beginning, vaccine makers could not get the measles vaccine to override infants’ natural maternal measles antibodies that block the acquisition of vaccine strain antibodies.40 Today, because most women have been vaccinated as children, they don’t have the same kind of robust maternal measles antibodies to pass on to their newborns like mothers in past generations.
Today, most newborns are susceptible to measles infections from birth, when complications can be more severe.41,42 And adults, including pregnant women, today can also be more susceptible to measles infections if their vaccine acquired antibodies have waned and they are no longer protected.43
This taking away of measles maternal immunity from newborns was the first major alteration in the “remarkably stable biological balance” between the measles virus and humans that Langmuir and his colleagues described a year before measles vaccines were licensed and given to babies as young as 9 months old.
The recommendation for the first dose of measles vaccine was raised to 12 months old in 1965. In 1976, the age had to be raised again to 15 months because the younger the infant, the less likely the measles vaccine will be effective.44
First inactivated measles vaccine lethal, ineffective
The first inactivated measles virus vaccine turned out to be pretty lethal, as well as marginally effective.45,46 Three doses of that vaccine set children up for a more severe type of atypical measles, which increased the risk of chronic illness and death if, years later, they got infected with wild-type measles.47,48 The inactivated measles vaccine was taken off the market in 1967.
First attenuated live measles vaccine very reactive
Merck’s first attenuated live measles virus vaccine was given in one dose that was supposed to confer lifelong immunity.49 It was described by the surgeon general in 1963 as producing a “mild or inapparent, noncommunicable measles infection.”50 It was pretty reactive too: 30% to 60% of children experienced high fevers or a modified measles rash along with cough and cold symptoms, similar to wild type measles.
Attenuated live vaccines contain lab-altered, weakened viruses that infect and replicate in the body to stimulate artificial immunity without causing the wild type viral disease. However, there is always a possibility that vaccine viruses may revert to a more pathogenic form, which is why just the right amount of attenuation is so important.51 To make the live measles vaccine less reactive, it had to be further attenuated in 1965 and, then again, in 1968.52,53
Estimated 55% vaccine ‘herd immunity’ to eradicate measles by 1967
In March 1967 Langmuir and other CDC officials published a paper in the medical literature, once again describing measles virus as one that “has maintained a remarkably stable ecological relationship with man.”54 Measles “complications are infrequent,” they said, and “with adequate medical care, fatality is rare” and “immunity following recovery is solid and lifelong in duration.”
They said a 55% herd immunity threshold or more may be needed to prevent measles epidemics that cycle in communities every two to three years but that, “there is no reason to question that … the immune threshold is considerably less than 100%.”
These disease control experts ended their article by stating confidently that if a good number of children — but clearly not all children — were vaccinated during the winter and spring that year, then “the eradication of measles from the United States in 1967” would be accomplished.
1973: Vaccinated children can still get measles
In 1973, Dr. Stanley Plotkin warned that vaccinated children could still get measles and that “a history of previous vaccination cannot be assumed to exclude measles as the cause of an exanthem rash, whether typical or atypical.” He said “about 5% of vacinees do not respond and presumably remain susceptible,” which he described as “primary vaccine failures.”
Plotkin also said there was evidence that some previously vaccinated children exposed to wild type measles could “develop modified illness and a secondary type of antibody response,” which he described as “secondary vaccine failures.”55
In other words, vaccine makers and public health officials knew in 1973 that getting a dose of the live virus measles vaccine does not guarantee that a vaccinated person won’t get infected with wild type measles — and they also were not sure about whether some vaccinated children could still transmit wild type measles to others.
1 death in 1,000 REPORTED measles cases?
Between 1971 and 1975, an average of 35 measles-related deaths were recorded each year in the U.S., which CDC officials said equaled a measles mortality rate of 1 death in 1,000 reported cases,56 although in Great Britain the estimate was 1 death in 5,000 reported measles cases.57 Relying on reported cases to make the measles mortality estimate for the U.S. was not entirely accurate because the majority of measles cases were mild and not reported to the government.
Today, CDC officials still use the 1 death in 1,000 figure to reinforce the need to eradicate the virus using every means possible, including by excluding all unvaccinated children from schools.58
Measles vaccine herd immunity raised to above 90% level
By 1971, about 72% of children had gotten a dose of measles vaccine, and government health officials published a paper blaming the continuing failure to eradicate measles on the failure to get every child vaccinated at age 1 and the failure of more than half the states to require measles vaccine for children entering school.59
They raised the measles vaccine-acquired “herd immunity” threshold from more than 55% to “somewhere above the 90% level,” but added the interesting caveat: “if it exists at all.” They said many unanswered questions remained, including the role that vaccinated persons may play “in the transmission of wild-type measles virus to susceptibles.”
1973 MMR eradication campaign fails, measles cases increase in older children despite 96% vaccination rate
Regardless, in 1973, Merck was given a license to combine the live measles vaccine with live mumps and rubella vaccines in the attenuated MMR vaccine. Two years later, CDC officials tried to use MMR to eradicate measles by employing surveillance and containment strategies that worked to eradicate smallpox, even though they knew the highly contagious measles virus was quite different from the less contagious smallpox virus. The MMR eradication campaign in 1973 was a miserable failure.60
Three years later, there was an unexplained resurgence of measles in the U.S. in children 10 to 19 years old.61 Public health officials in the City of Los Angeles responded by declaring an emergency and, rather than quarantining sick children until they were well, 50,000 unvaccinated healthy children were excluded from schools until they got vaccinated.
This set the stage for state governments to institute “no shots, no school” laws62 that, today, are the subject of much debate in state legislatures.63,64,65
96% child vaccination rate and new 1982 eradication goal
By 1978, CDC officials announced that 96% of children entering schools in America had gotten a dose of measles vaccine, and said it was likely that measles would be eliminated from the U.S. by 1982.66
Measles sweeps through schools in mid-1980s with nearly 100% vaccination rates among students
In 1983, there were only about 1500 reported cases of measles,67 but there was a red flag: Infants vaccinated in the first year of life were not protected from measles, even when they got more doses of the vaccine.68 From 1985 to 1988, there were between 55 and 110 measles outbreaks every year in the U.S., primarily in highly vaccinated school-aged populations.69
Measles swept through a middle school in Texas, where 99% of the students were vaccinated, and in a Massachusetts high school with a 98% vaccination rate.70,71
The CDC did not get the science right in 1967 or 1978 and neither did Merck. The vaccine they said would eradicate measles by 1967 was not getting the job done. Twenty years later, vaccination rates among children in many schools were approaching 100% and vaccinated children were still getting and transmitting measles.
1989-1990 — Measles cases explode in North and Central America with vaccinated and unvaccinated children hit hard in US
Then, in 1989-1990, measles cases exploded in North and Central America, including in the U.S. and were associated with unusually high morbidity and mortality. The CDC said they didn’t know why there were increases in measles but insisted that “measles vaccines appear to be as effective today as in the past,” while quietly admitting that “analysis of contemporary strains of measles virus suggest that circulating viruses may have changed somewhat from past strains.”72
There were more than 45,000 measles cases reported in the U.S. during 1989 and 1990, and over 100 deaths. Vaccinated school children were hit hard. A large number of cases also occurred in babies less than 15 months old and in unvaccinated toddlers, as well as in college students.73
CDC: All children must get TWO doses of MMR vaccine
By the end of 1989, the CDC recommended that children should get their first dose of MMR vaccine at age 15 months and all children should get a booster dose before entering kindergarten. “When fully implemented,” CDC officials said, “this schedule should lead to the elimination of measles among school aged children and college students.” They reassured physicians, parents and politicians that:
“Although the titers of vaccine-induced antibodies are lower than those following natural disease, both serologic and epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccine-induced protection appears to be long lasting in most individuals.”74
Why was measles suddenly more virulent?
I was a consumer member of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) during the 1989-1990 measles outbreak, when a high number of vaccinated school children were getting measles and so were unvaccinated preschool-age children living in minority communities in inner city Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Dallas and other urban areas.75
An FDA scientist made a presentation to the committee revealing that the type of measles circulating appeared to be unusually virulent and associated with unexpected morbidity and mortality for unvaccinated infants under age 1 and also in vaccinated and unvaccinated children under age 5.
I thought that fact was worth exploring further, along with a need to analyze the biological mechanisms for vaccine failure before any conclusions were drawn or recommendations were made.
In 1991, I refused to sign a highly political white paper the committee published that stated, “The principal cause for the measles epidemic is failure to provide vaccine to children at the recommended age.” It rubber-stamped the CDC’s knee-jerk response to a long-standing problem with MMR vaccine failures, which was a new recommendation to give every child in America two doses of MMR vaccine.76
1993: CDC says measles is deadly and unvaccinated children cause outbreaks
In 1993, President Clinton announced the Children’s Immunization Initiative to ensure that all children, especially those under age 2, would be vaccinated according to the CDC’s recommended childhood vaccine schedule.77
CDC officials published a paper pointing to the costs associated with the measles epidemic of 1989-1991 as a reason that more aggressive efforts were needed to give all children two doses of MMR vaccine. They also announced a plan to create a national vaccine tracking system to electronically monitor the vaccination status of all children from birth.
They reminded everyone of the danger of measles and “the full magnitude of the harm that can be done by a so-called “mild” children’s disease,” which they said was mistakenly regarded for a long time by the public and many health professionals as “an unpleasant but not very dangerous part of life.”
The government’s message to the public in 1993 was: measles is deadly, outbreaks are caused by a failure to vaccinate enough children on time, and the solution is to spend more money to give more children more vaccine. One part of the 1993 children’s vaccine initiative — the federal Vaccines for Children program — today spends $4 billion to buy vaccines for the states to administer to children.78
Nobody wanted to talk about studies published in the medical literature investigating what Plotkin had described in 1973 as “secondary vaccine failures.”
MMR vaccine failures and asymptomatic infections revealed
One U.S. study of a prolonged school-based outbreak of measles found that secondary vaccine failure and vaccine modified measles “may lead to underreporting of measles cases and result in overestimation of vaccine efficacy in highly vaccinated populations.”79
In 1992, Canadian researchers had discovered that “… [C]ontact with wild measles virus may act as a booster to the immune system in vaccinated subjects without causing any symptoms,” and that “secondary vaccine failure (SVF) might play a role in vaccinated populations during measles outbreaks.”80
In 1993, there was enough evidence that vitamin A deficiency plays a big role in measles morbidity and mortality for the World Health Organization to issue a recommendation that vitamin A supplements should be given to children diagnosed with measles in developing countries.81
In 1994, researchers analyzed school-based measles outbreaks in the U.S. and Canada and devised a hypothetical model to calculate vaccine failure rates and the percentage of measles cases occurring in vaccinated students if more than 95% of school children are vaccinated. They concluded:
“The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons. Because of the failure rate of the vaccine and the unique transmissibility of measles virus, the currently available measles vaccine, used in a single dose strategy, is unlikely to completely eliminate measles. The long term success of a two-dose strategy to eliminate measles remains to be determined.”82
PCR testing reveals mild and subclinical measles after MMR vaccination
In 1995, new reverse transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR) lab test technology was used to detect and differentiate between the presence of wild type and vaccine strain measles virus in children with symptoms of measles. Japanese scientists isolated measles virus from children who developed clinical signs of fever and rash three to nine days after they were given measles vaccine, and found that “one strain was of the vaccine type and the remaining six were the wild-type.”83
That same year, CDC virologists used PCR technology to identify measles virus RNA in the urine of 15-month old children and young adults between one and 14 days after vaccination. They said;
“The changing epidemiology of measles in the form of mild measles cases in previously vaccinated individuals suggests that more asymptomatic or subclinical cases might be occurring. The frequency of such infections, which would not meet the standard case definition of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is not known.”84
New CDC goal for measles elimination in US — year 2000
Even as measles outbreaks among infants, vaccinated school children and college students were raising serious questions about MMR vaccine failures, in 1998 CDC officials declared, “[I]nterruption of indigenous measles transmission appears to have occurred for the first time throughout the United States in 1993.” They set yet another goal to declare measles eliminated in the U.S., this time by the year 2000.85
Measles viruses “genetically distinct from vaccine strains” in 1989-1990
But 1998 was also the year that CDC officials confirmed that the 1989-1990 measles outbreak, which caused a higher number of hospitalizations and deaths, was associated with circulation of Group 2 measles viruses, particularly D3, that were “genetically distinct from vaccine strains.”86,87
Newborns more susceptible to measles and lack maternal antibodies
In the meantime, a group of researchers at Stanford University found that “humoral immunity was deficient in 6-month-old infants given measles vaccine …” They admitted “little is known about the maturation of the virus-specific immune responses in healthy infants following infection or immunization.”88
A year later, CDC officials confirmed “infants whose mothers were born after 1963 are more susceptible to measles than are infants of older mothers.”
Rather than reflect upon the ecological imbalance the measles vaccine campaign had created, they pressed forward with their “because we can” action plan and said, “this potential increase in infant mortality should provide additional impetus to strengthen efforts toward global eradication of measles disease” with intensive campaigns to vaccinate older children.89
Mild or asymptomatic measles infections ‘common’ in fully vaccinated populations: Exposure to wild type virus boosts immunity
At the same time, more scientific evidence was mounting that vaccinated persons could be asymptomatically infected with wild type measles and that an unknown number of people were experiencing subclinical measles infections that were not being identified or reported to the government. In published papers, CDC officials acknowledged that:
“Mild or asymptomatic measles infections are probably very common among measles-immune persons exposed to measles cases and may be the most common manifestation of measles during outbreaks in highly immune populations.”90
German virologists agreed that:
“… [M]easles virus (MV) could circulate in seropositive fully protected populations. Among individuals fully protected against disease, those prone to asymptomatic secondary immune response are the most likely to support subclinical MV transmission.”91
In 1999, European researchers observed that:
“… [A] substantial proportion of individuals who respond to measles vaccine display an antibody boost accompanied by mild or no symptoms on exposure to wild virus.”
In addition, they said that in highly vaccinated populations “neutralizing antibodies are decaying significantly in absence of circulating virus.” They estimated “the mean duration of vaccine induced protection in absence of re-exposure to be 25 years,” warning that “there is a need to establish the intensity and duration of infectiousness in vaccinated individuals.”92
Is measles herd immunity now a combination of natural and vaccine-acquired immunity?
So the question that was hanging in the air at the turn of the 21st century is one that is still relevant today:
If an unknown number of people with natural or vaccine acquired immunity are experiencing subclinical measles infections that are not being identified or reported to the government, has a certain level of herd immunity been maintained in the past because human populations are asymptomatically boosted through periodic exposure to the wild-type measles virus?
CDC declares measles eliminated from US in 2000
By the year 2000, more than 90% of 19- to 35 month-old children and 98% of children entering school had received at least one dose of MMR vaccine. That year, the World Health Organization also reported that 80% of the world’s infants had gotten a dose of measles vaccine.93
In the spring of 2000, the CDC held a meeting with 12 consultants and 10 resource specialists to talk about measles in the U.S.94 Estimating that “at least 92% to 93% of the U.S. population is immune to measles,” at the end of the meeting, participants concluded that “measles is not endemic in the United States at present.”
This meeting is the source of the statements made by CDC officials today that, “Measles was declared eliminated (absence of continuous disease transmission for greater than 12 months) from the United States in 2000.”95
WHO sets global measles eradication goal for 2020
In 2001, the World Health Organization launched a global measles and rubella elimination plan, which was renewed in 2010 and again in 2012. Currently, 2020 is the target date for global eradication of measles through mass vaccination campaigns that will deliver two doses of MMR to every child in the world.96
Measles can infect previously immune people and cause typical, mild and asymptomatic infections
In 2002, more scientific evidence was published, this time out of Japan, to confirm “measles virus can infect previously immune individuals,” both those who are naturally immune and those who have been vaccinated, and that the reinfection can produce “a wide range of illnesses: typical measles, mild modified measles and asymptomatic infection.”
Researchers concluded that “… [T]he number of cases of measles among previously immunized individuals has increased, probably caused by waning of vaccine-induced immunity” and they suggested:97
” … [A]symptomatic measles infections occur even in the adult population with unexpectedly high frequency and this supports the preservation of measles immunity.”
Between 2000 and 2005, it appeared measles had all but disappeared from the U.S. with historically low numbers of reported cases — only 37 cases in 2004 — the lowest for any year on record. The CDC said most measles cases were imported from outside the country.98
2008-2018: Measles cases increase in US; unvaccinated children blamed
Then, between 200899 and 2018,100 measles cases in the US started to increase. Even though less than 2% of children were attending school with a vaccine exemption, the explanation coming from public health officials was that measles outbreaks were caused by unvaccinated children.101
In 2015, there was a highly publicized outbreak of measles in the U.S. that the CDC said began in California’s Disneyland and unvaccinated children were to blame.102,103 Later it was revealed 30% of measles cases in California with vaccine records had been vaccinated; over half the cases were in adults; only 18% were school children; and a large number of suspected cases were not wild type measles but vaccine strain measles infections.104,105
By that time, more than a decade of articles had been published in the medical literature calling for an end to religious and conscientious belief exemptions and restriction of the medical vaccine exemption for children.106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113
2019: Measles outbreaks in US and world
In January 2019, the World Health Organization announced that “vaccine hesitancy” is one of the top 10 global health threats.114 By March 2019, about 2,000 cases of measles had been reported in a European Union population of 512 million people.115 By mid-April, the World Health Organization reported a worldwide resurgence of measles with 112,000 cases reported in 170 countries, which WHO officials said reflected about 10% of all cases.116,117
By May 13, 2019, the CDC had confirmed 839 cases of measles in 23 states in a U.S. population of 328 million people.118
Unprecedented response by public health officials and media
The government and media response to measles outbreaks has been both unprecedented and uniform.119 In Rockland County, New York, instead of quarantining people infected with measles, government officials threatened parents of healthy unvaccinated children with fines and imprisonment if their children appeared in public spaces — the first time that has been done in American history.120,121,122 It wasn’t done for smallpox or polio. But it has been done for measles.
Unvaccinated children and adults living, working or visiting in neighborhoods with certain zip codes in Brooklyn have been threatened with steep fines if they are found to have been in contact with someone with measles.123,124 An entire cruise ship was quarantined for weeks because passengers had been exposed to a crewmember, who tested positive for measles.125
The response to measles outbreaks by public health officials and the media this year is so over the top, you would think the human race is hovering on the brink of extinction.126,127,128,129 A friend of a certain age, who also had measles as a child, said the hysteria reminds her of an old government propaganda film from the 1940s, “Reefer Madness,” where every person who smokes marijuana turns into a raving lunatic.130
But for post-baby boomer generations who cut their teeth on Zombie Apocalypse movies, the propaganda message of choice appears to be one that teaches people to be afraid — be very afraid — of the unvaccinated, who are going to turn our planet into the Night of the Living Dead,131,132,133,134 and that they should be publicly identified, shamed, hunted down and — what?
Taking a look at the science is useful to get a grip on an overpublicized fear campaign that is turning Americans against each other: parents against parents, doctors against patients, sons against mothers, friends against friends.135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142
It is a shameful display of ignorance, prejudice and discrimination being promoted by individuals in academia, the medical community, public health and journalism, and it should not be happening in a society that has historically valued equality and freedom of thought, speech and conscience.143,144,145,146,147
What the science says about measles and vaccine failures
Here is what scientists have been saying recently about what they do and don’t know about measles and measles vaccine failures. From the Vaccine Research Group at Minnesota’s Mayo Clinic:
“While the current vaccine used in the USA and many other countries is safe and effective, paradoxically in the unique case of measles, it appears to insufficiently induce herd immunity in the population”148
Even with two doses of MMR vaccine, an individual can fail to either mount or sustain a protective immune response. Up to 10% of those given two doses “fail to develop protective humoral immunity and those antibody levels wane over time, which can result in infection”149
Individuals respond differently to vaccination and each individual’s genes play a role in controlling measles vaccine-induced immune responses. Scientists still do not completely understand “how the immune response is generated” or “how host genetic and epigenetic variations change and impact vaccine immune responses,” or “how pathogens interact with the immune system”150
“The importance of cellular immunity to vaccine-induced protection is not completely understood.” Some children with no detectible measles antibodies may still be protected against measles, which supports the “involvement of cellular immunity”151
Scientists do not have “a detailed understanding of the pathogenesis of the measles virus” or of vaccine-induced innate and adaptive (humoral) immunity. Better correlates of protection “that go beyond measuring antibody titers” are needed. There is not enough information about what drives a vaccine response, a vaccine nonresponse, adverse events following vaccination and the many complex interactions between immune function-related components152
Genetic ancestry is a significant determinant of vaccine responses. In one cohort study, Caucasians and most Hispanics, ethnic groups — which represent nearly 80% of the U.S. population — showed significantly lower humoral and cellular responses to MMR vaccination than African-Americans153
From microbiologists at the College Medical Sciences in India:
“The measles virus (MeV) is serologically monotypic but genotyping confirms eight clades (A-H). The clades are further subdivided into 23 genotypes … Although sera from vaccinated individuals neutralize all the clades, the efficacy varies from clade to clade. It may be said that the level of protection offered by this vaccine varies from genotype to genotype”154
“The present vaccine does not offer complete protection assurance and the limitations are evident now. Newer strains show epitopes that are not shared by vaccine strains. Variations in the efficacy of neutralization in the vaccinated individuals against wild MeV has been reported”155
From a virologist with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:
“The original Edmonston strain of MeV is not available and genotype A viruses are extinct, so it is not possible to directly compare attenuated vaccine viruses with the original WT virus from which they were derived …. sequences of vaccine strains compared with current WT strains reveal differences in most viral proteins, any of which may contribute to attenuation and no one change or combination of changes has been identified as responsible for attenuation”156
“Despite long use of measles vaccine, neither the determinants of attenuation nor of protective immunity have been identified and deserve investigation. The reasons for failures of the formalin-inactivated vaccine and the high titer live virus vaccine are only partially understood and provide cautionary tales for development of other vaccines”157
Just out of Australia, scientists reported in May 2019 that there is evidence for “waning measles immunity among vaccinated individuals” that is “associated with secondary vaccine failure and modified clinical illness” with “transmission potential.”158 This finding confirms the scientific evidence coming from Berlin, Germany in April that:159
“Although measles cases have gradually declined globally since the 1980s together with an increase in vaccination coverage, there has been a resurgence of measles in the European Union and European Economic Area starting in 2017 with adults aged over 20 years comprising more than a third of all cases.”
“The impact of waning immunity to measles will likely become more apparent over the coming years and may increase in the future, as the vaccinated population (with hardly any exposure to measles) will grow older and the time since vaccination increases. It is worth noting that the median age of measles cases has been increasing over the past 15 years in Berlin and the extent of waning immunity may increase further.
Vaccinated cases have a lower viraemia and have rarely been observed to contribute to transmission. However, with the vaccinated population turning older and titres possibly decreasing further, this observation has to be re-evaluated.“
There are unanswered questions that need to be answered, such as:
How many unvaccinated children are being diagnosed with measles because they are fully expressing symptoms and are more easily identified and reported, while vaccinated children and adults are being asymptomatically infected or are only experiencing mild symptoms that are never identified or reported?
And how will waning vaccine immunity and the emergence of new measles strains impact the lives of pregnant women and their newborn infants, who no longer have measles maternal antibodies, and the immune-compromised, who have been told that forcing everyone else to get vaccinated will create herd immunity and protect them?
1984 Prediction: More measles after vaccination campaign
In 1984 an article was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The author made a prediction of what the impact of giving all children measles vaccine would have by the year 2050 in the U.S.160
A computer model simulation revealed that during the prevaccine era, approximately 10.6% of the population was susceptible to measles, most being children under 10 years old. After the institution of the measles vaccine program, the proportion of susceptibles fell to 3.1% from 1978 to 1981, but then began to incrementally rise every year.
The prediction was that by the year 2050 about 10.9% of the population would be susceptible to measles and, instead of measles primarily infecting children under age 10, the cases would be distributed evenly among all age groups.
The conclusion was that measles elimination in the U.S. being achieved in the late 20th century was a combination of vaccinating young susceptibles combined with the presence of a highly immune adult population that had natural immunity. However, there was a prophetic warning about measles for those living in 21st century America:
“Despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibles in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era.”161
Scapegoating parents to explain failed measles eradication program
As the 72 million adults of the baby boomer generation come to the end of their lives162,163 — the last generation with robust natural measles immunity from childhood, which has greatly contributed to herd immunity in this population — it is long past time for public health officials to reevaluate what they are doing.
For more than 55 years, they have stubbornly ignored persistent signs that the hypothesis of the medical experiment they have been conducting was fundamentally flawed. Instead, their answer to measles outbreaks, always, has been to simplistically order children to get more MMR vaccine and to scapegoat parents of unvaccinated children for a problem parents did not create and do not own.164,165,166,167
When vaccine policy and law supercedes the science, we all pay the price. People should not be forced to use vaccines that not only cause harm but also, clearly, fail to work as advertised.168,169,170,171
Go to NVIC.org and read this report. Look at the references documenting the information. Share it with others. Educate your legislators. Knowledge is power. Be the one who never has to say that you did not do today what you could have done to change tomorrow. It’s your health, your family, your choice.
(Natural News) Diabetes is now a worldwide epidemic, putting researchers on the offensive as they continue to search for ways to stop it. A study published in the journal Nutrition Research found that supplementing with vitamin D can reduce insulin resistance and improve the levels of fasting blood sugar in healthy adults, preventing the development of…
(Natural News) Scientists from the University of Warwick in England have finally identified the enzyme responsible for “loading up” fat-carrying particles in the liver, which are then transported around the body. The study, which appeared in the Journal of Lipid Research, also revealed how this enzyme could be “slimmed down” to reduce the amount of bad cholesterol that…
In what is surely an unprecedented and groundbreaking action, the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, has personally backed an International Appeal to stop the controversial roll-out of 5G electromagnetic microwave telecommunication transmissions.
5G, a new millimetre band frequency range being introduced by the telecommunications industry worldwide has been identified by over 2,000 scientists and 1,400 medical doctors from all over the world, as presenting a direct threat to human health, as well as to animal, insect and plant life.
There have been no safety tests carried out to ensure its safety, in spite of the fact that 5G operates at between 10 and 100 times higher frequencies than current 3 and 4G cell phone tower transmitters.
My sources in the Catholic Hierarchy are all scurrying around like mad ants, preparing for a big announcement about returning the assets to the “indigenous people” of the Earth, trying to make their narrative about the “meek inheriting the Earth” play out in real time. Only the “meek” aren’t meek and its all just more bull designed to excuse things that were always inexcusable now as well as then.
Its time for everyone to fully realize that the only time that exists is right now. Trying to repair the past by making more injustices manifest in the present is just a recipe for disaster. So get ready for more idiocy on a half-shell.
If we were in receipt of anything like a Good Faith effort — which we are not thus far — then all the False Doctrines would be sorted through and thrown out. It wouldn’t just be the Doctrine of Discovery on the rubbish heap of history. It would be the Collective Entity Doctrine and a lot of other doctrines, too, examined and jettisoned as flotsam.
The fact that the Holy See hasn’t made correction and is more intent on pulling a big publicity stunt has not escaped anyone in my circle.
It also hasn’t escaped us that the Stigmatics are all bleeding, all at once, all over the Globe, indicating that Jesus is suffering over the idiocy of men and our governments and the violence and misery that their present actions — however well-intended — are on course to cause.
I guess that this is what comes from making men wear dresses and funny hats and not allowing them to get married and have families of their own. They lose track of actual life and what it is all about and what will work and what won’t.
I read the piece about the “Secret Constitution” — but there are no secrets, just things nobody has been told or bothered to learn. There are long-standing misunderstandings about our Federal Constitutions– some of them deliberate that need to be guarded against. So please bear with me once more:
“The United States” is the proper name of our national union of republican states controlling the soil jurisdiction of this country. It was adopted on September 9, 1776. At the same time, a federation of States was formed and named “The United States of America” controlling the international jurisdiction (both land and sea) belonging to The United States. Five years later, in March of 1781 — still during the full fight of The American Revolution— a confederation of States of States was formed doing business as the “States of America”.
See how that works? Nation gives rise to Federation and Federation gives rise to Confederation.
It had to follow through in exactly that way and exactly that order, because the “land” jurisdiction underlying the soil cannot be accessed until and unless the soil jurisdiction (national jurisdiction) is claimed first— just as you can’t define or get to the flesh of an apple without the skin. You have to claim the “skin” — that is, the soil jurisdiction defining the national turf in physical terms first. This is the home place of our republican states of the Union, dba The United States. Notice that this is a proper name: The United States and it is not the same as “the” United States.
Next, you claim the international land jurisdiction underlying the soil and the international sea jurisdiction naturally belonging to the country, and for this job, our ancestors created States and a Federation of States doing business as “The United States of America”. Note that this is a proper name: The United States of America, and it is not the same as “the” United States of America.
You have to have physically defined States operating both the soil and land jurisdictions before you can create States of States and a Confederation of these entities. “Florida” has to exist before you can have a “State of Florida” and also, the Federation has to exist before a Con-federation can organize.
All these different entities occupy different jurisdictions and act in different capacities.
The United States = soil jurisdiction = republican states of the Union = Texas Republic (soil) and Republic of Texas (surface water).
The United States of America = international land and sea jurisdiction = States = Virginia, Maine, California….
States of America = global commercial jurisdiction = incorporated States of States = (originally) The State of Maine, The State of Virginia….. these are all called Confederate States, but they are actually all inchoate corporations. All the entities that fought in The American Civil War were commercial corporations, not actual States.
Obviously, States of States, that is, commercial corporations acting as Confederate States at all levels, can be chartered by any government. Our big problem has been that our original Federal States of States (Confederate States) were all disabled and moth-balled in the wake of the Civil War, so we’ve had foreign-chartered interlopers in here cracking the whip.
So now it comes as no big surprise that there are three (3) Federal Constitutions, either —
The Constitution for the united States of America — governing the structure and operations of the States of America –the original Confederation– describes the duties and limitations of this government under contract to provide certain enumerated government services.
The 1787 Constitution is set up to define exactly what powers the States are allowing the States of States to exercise “for” them and under what limits. It addresses American business organizations under contract to our States to provide stipulated government services, but there have been no American organizations in this position since 1868: the Federal States of States haven’t been “reconstructed”.
Instead, the Brits and the French-Benelux-Swiss-Holy Roman Empire goons have been in here “helping us out” of house and home and substituting their own Territorial and Municipal State-of-State organizations to do the work of our own Federal States of States, like The State of Maine.
The Constitution of the United States of America — reiterates the structure and duties of “the” United States of America — the British doppelganger operating “in our name” to exercise our powers delegated to it. This addressed British business organizations under contract to our States to provide agreed upon services.
The Constitution of the United States – again reiterates the same basic plan for the Municipal Government which is operating “in our name” to exercise our delegated powers for us. This addresses the rights and duties of the Municipal corporations which, like the States of America, are all business organizations in the business of providing stipulated government services.
The Constitutions set up the three branches of the Federal Government — Federal, Territorial, and Municipal — to provide us “essential government services” and to exercise our own “powers” for us to provide those services.
The Constitutions are glorified government service contracts backed via international treaties. They spell out which subcontractor gets to manage which piece of the pie— a pie that belongs to the States of the Union.
The Constitutions are international contracts, not commercial contracts.
That is why you can’t “reach” the Constitutions in a Municipal COURT and the strongest evidence there is yet, that the creation and attempted foisting off of Municipal PERSONS named after Americans is a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Constitutions and their guarantees. If we are acting in the capacity of PERSONS we “can’t get there from here”. We can’t invoke the protections or the guarantees of the Constitutions as “presumed to be” Citizens of the United States.
By “conferring” municipal citizenship on us and “gifting” us with multiple Municipal PERSONS without our knowledge or consent, the rats have attempted to subject us under commercial law and tried to make us liable for their odious hypothecated debts, and have deliberately sought to create unconscionable contracts with minors and do all sorts of other evil — and do it “in our names” no less.
This entire scheme has been a conspiracy to undermine and circumvent and vacate and otherwise avoid the lawful restraints and obligations of our Constitutions— and to deny the American People the guarantees and protections they are heir to and owed.