Only 250 spots available, reserve your spot now: https://drjaydavidson.com/parasite-webinar?
When? Thursday, November 1 at 8 pm Central.
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/measles-transmitted-vaccinated-gov-researchers-confirm
Research reveals that a vaccinated individual not only can become infected with measles, but can also spread it to others who are also vaccinated against it – doubly disproving that the administration of multiple doses of MMR vaccine is “97% effective,” as widely claimed.
One of the fundamental errors in thinking about measles vaccine effectiveness is that receipt of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine equates to bona fide immunity against measles virus. Indeed, it is commonly claimed by health organizations like the CDC that receiving two doses of the MMR vaccine is “97 percent effective in preventing measles,” despite a voluminous body of contradictory evidence from epidemiology and clinical experience.
This erroneous thinking has led the public, media and government alike to attribute the origin of measles outbreaks, such as the one reported at Disney in 2015 (and which lead to the passing of SB277 that year, stripping vaccine exemptions for all but medical reasons in California), to the non-vaccinated, even though 18% of the measles cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated against it — hardly the vaccine’s two-dose claimed “97% effectiveness.” The vaccine’s obvious fallibility is also indicated by the fact that that the CDC now requires two doses.
But the problems surrounding the failing MMR vaccine go much deeper. First, they carry profound health risks (over 25 of which we have indexed here: MMR vaccine dangers), including increased autism risk, which a senior CDC scientist confessed his agency covered up, which do not justify the risk, given that measles is not only not deadly but confers significant health benefits that have been validated in the biomedical literature. Second, not only does the MMR vaccine fail to consistently confer immunity, but those who have been “immunized” with two doses of MMR vaccine can still transmit the infection to others — a phenomena no one is reporting on in the rush to blame the non- or minimally-vaccinated for the outbreak.
Three years ago, a groundbreaking study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases, whose authorship included scientists working for the Bureau of Immunization, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, GA, looked at evidence from the 2011 New York measles outbreak that individuals with prior evidence of measles vaccination and vaccine immunity were both capable of being infected with measles and infecting others with it (secondary transmission).
This finding even aroused the attention of mainstream news reporting, such as this Sciencemag.org article from April 2014 titled “Measles Outbreak Traced to Fully Vaccinated Patient for First Time.”
Titled, “Outbreak of Measles Among Persons With Prior Evidence of Immunity, New York City, 2011,” the groundbreaking study acknowledged that, “Measles may occur in vaccinated individuals, but secondary transmission from such individuals has not been documented.”
In order to find out if measles vaccine compliant individuals are capable of being infected and transmitting the infection to others, they evaluated suspected cases and contacts exposed during a 2011 measles outbreak in NYC. They focused on one patient who had received two doses of measles-containing vaccine and found that,
“Of 88 contacts, four secondary cases were confirmed that had either two doses of measles-containing vaccine or a past positive measles IgG antibody. All cases had laboratory confirmation of measles infection, clinical symptoms consistent with measles, and high avidity IgG antibody characteristic of a secondary immune response.”
Their remarkable conclusion:
“This is the first report of measles transmission from a twice vaccinated individual. The clinical presentation and laboratory data of the index were typical of measles in a naïve individual. Secondary cases had robust anamnestic antibody responses. No tertiary cases occurred despite numerous contacts. This outbreak underscores the need for thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status.”
Did you follow that? A twice-vaccinated individual, from a NYC measles outbreak, was found to have transmitted measles to four of her contacts, two of which themselves had received two doses of MMR vaccine and had prior presumably protective measles IgG antibody results.
This phenomenon — the MMR vaccine compliant infecting other MMR vaccine compliant cases – has been ignored by health agencies and the media. This data corroborates the possibility that, during the Disney measles outbreak the previously vaccinated (any of the 18% known to have become infected) may have become infected or already were shedding measles from a vaccine and transmitted measles to both the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated.
Moreover, these CDC and NYC Bureau of Immunization scientists identified a ‘need’ for there to be “thorough epidemiologic and laboratory investigation of suspected measles cases regardless of vaccination status,” i.e. investigators must rule out vaccine failure and infection by fully infected individuals as contributing to measles outbreaks.
Instead, what’s happening now is that the moment a measles outbreak occurs, a reflexive ‘blame the victim’ attitude is assumed, and the media and/or health agencies report on the outbreak as if it has been proven the afflicted are under or non-vaccinated – often without sufficient evidence to support these claims. Clearly stakeholders in the vaccine/non-vaccine debate need to look at the situation through the lens of the evidence itself and not science by proclamation or pleas to authority.
Amazingly, the truth has been suppressed for decades. Twenty years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. Scientists working at the CDC’s National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it. The MMR vaccine’s manufacturer Merck’s own product insert, the MMR can cause measles inclusion body encephalitis (MIBE), a rare but potentially lethal form of brain infection with measles. Learn more by reading my article on the topic, “The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm.”
The moral of the story is that you can’t blame non-vaccinating parents for the morbidity and mortality of infectious diseases when vaccination does not result in immunity and does not keep those who are vaccinated from infecting others. In fact, outbreaks secondary to measles vaccine failure and shedding in up to 99% immunization compliant populations have happened for decades. Here are just a few examples reported in the medical literature:
1985, Texas, USA: According to an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1987, “An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced.” They concluded: “We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.”1
1985, Montana, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled, “A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures,” an outbreak of 137 cases of measles occurred in Montana. School records indicated that 98.7% of students were appropriately vaccinated, leading the researchers to conclude: “This outbreak suggests that measles transmission may persist in some settings despite appropriate implementation of the current measles elimination strategy.”2
1988, Colorado, USA: According to an article published in the American Journal of Public Health in 1991, “early 1988 an outbreak of 84 measles cases occurred at a college in Colorado in which over 98 percent of students had documentation of adequate measles immunity … due to an immunization requirement in effect since 1986. They concluded: “…measles outbreaks can occur among highly vaccinated college populations.”3
1989, Quebec, Canada: According to an article published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health in 1991, a 1989 measles outbreak was “largely attributed to an incomplete vaccination coverage,” but following an extensive review the researchers concluded “Incomplete vaccination coverage is not a valid explanation for the Quebec City measles outbreak.4
1991-1992, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: According to an article published in the journal Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical, in a measles outbreak from March 1991 to April 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, 76.4% of those suspected to be infected had received measles vaccine before their first birthday.5
1992, Cape Town, South Africa: According to an article published in the South African Medical Journal in 1994, “[In] August 1992 an outbreak occurred, with cases reported at many schools in children presumably immunised.” Immunization coverage for measles was found to be 91%, and vaccine efficacy found to be only 79%, leading them to conclude that primary and secondary vaccine failure was a possible explanation for the outbreak.6
There are plenty of other examples of the measles vaccine’s abject failure, including a study published in PLoS titled, “Difficulties in eliminating measles and controlling rubella and mumps: a cross-sectional study of a first measles and rubella vaccination and a second measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination,” which brought to light the glaring ineffectiveness of two measles vaccines (measles–rubella (MR) or measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) ) in fulfilling their widely claimed promise of preventing outbreaks in highly vaccine compliant populations. We dove deeply into the implications of this study in our article titled, “Why Is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated?“
The most recent example was released on the CDC’s website today in a report titled, “Measles Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population — Israel, July–August 2017,” where they describe a patient zero who had received three doses of MMR. Not unsurprisingly the CDC does not draw the obvious conclusion that the MMR vaccine failed, rather, that they should consider the measles a possibility when they examine a patient with fever and a rash even when the patient is vaccinated.
These seven outbreaks are by no means exhaustive of the biomedical literature, but illustrate just how misled the general public is about the effectiveness of measles vaccines, and the CDC’s vaccination agenda in general. No amount of historical ignorance will erase the fact that vaccination does not equal immunization; antigenicity does not equal immunogenicity. Nor are the unintended, adverse effects of MMR and other vaccines in the CDC schedule accurately portrayed, precluding access to the medical ethical principle of informed consent.
To learn more about this topic read my previous article, “The Vaccinated Spreading Measles: WHO, Merck, CDC Documents Confirm.”
1T L Gustafson, A W Lievens, P A Brunell, R G Moellenberg, C M Buttery, L M Sehulster. Measles outbreak in a fully immunized secondary-school population. N Engl J Med. 1987 Mar 26 ;316(13):771-4. PMID: 3821823
2R M Davis, E D Whitman, W A Orenstein, S R Preblud, L E Markowitz, A R Hinman. A persistent outbreak of measles despite appropriate prevention and control measures. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 Sep ;126(3):438-49. PMID: 3618578
3B S Hersh, L E Markowitz, R E Hoffman, D R Hoff, M J Doran, J C Fleishman, S R Preblud, W A Orenstein. A measles outbreak at a college with a prematriculation immunization requirement. Am J Public Health. 1991 Mar ;81(3):360-4. PMID: 1994745
4N Boulianne, G De Serres, B Duval, J R Joly, F Meyer, P Déry, M Alary, D Le Hénaff, N Thériault.[Major measles epidemic in the region of Quebec despite a 99% vaccine coverage]. Can J Public Health. 1991 May-Jun;82(3):189-90. PMID: 1884314
5S A de Oliveira, W N Soares, M O Dalston, M T de Almeida, A J Costa. Clinical and epidemiological findings during a measles outbreak occurring in a population with a high vaccination coverage. Rev Soc Bras Med Trop. 1995 Oct-Dec;28(4):339-43. PMID: 866883
6N Coetzee, G D Hussey, G Visser, P Barron, A Keen. The 1992 measles epidemic in Cape Town–a changing epidemiological pattern. S Afr Med J. 1994 Mar ;84(3):145-9. PMID: 7740350
https://globallymealliance.org/gla-pov-essential-oils-as-treatment-against-lyme-disease/
Global Lyme Alliance (GLA)-funded investigator Ying Zhang, Ph.D. (Professor at Department of Molecular Microbiology and Immunology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) details new findings on the effectiveness of certain essential oils to treat Lyme disease; “Identification of Essential Oils with Strong Activity against Stationary Phase Borrelia burgdorferi.”
Persister forms of B. burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, are dormant or slow-growing, and tolerant of antibiotic treatment. It’s not clear yet whether persister bacteria, immune dysfunction, or some combination of the two is responsible for post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), in which patients treated with antibiotics continue to suffer symptoms.
The search for novel compounds to kill persister bacteria has led to the discovery that essential oils (EOs), aromatic compounds produced by plants, may be promising. In an article published in Antibiotics, a peer-reviewed journal, scientists led by Dr. Ying Zhang identified 10 EOs that have strong activity against stationary phase B. burgdorferi at a low concentration of 0.1%. The study, underwritten by GLA, found that of the 10 EOs, those of garlic, allspice, and Palmarosa were active at even at 0.05% concentration. In addition, cinnamaldehyde, a major ingredient isolated from cinnamon bark, was active against both stationary phase bacteria as well as replicating B. burgdorferi at a 0.02% concentration.
A stringent test of antimicrobial activity against stationary phase bacteria is the capacity to block subcultured bacteria from growing. This means that after killing bacteria in culture with the inhibitor, a small amount of that culture is transferred to fresh growth media that lacks the inhibitor. Any regrowth indicates that the inhibitor did not completely kill all bacteria from the original culture. Under these conditions, only garlic and cinnamaldehyde were effective against the regrowth of B. burgdorferi spirochetes subcultured for 21 days.
These results indicate that certain EOs or their ingredients are potent in eliminating persister B. burgdorferi, and should be studied in greater depth to analyze their utility as potential treatments.
__________________
For more on Dr. Zhang’s work: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/13/oregano-cinnamon-and-clove-found-to-have-high-anti-persister-activity-for-bb/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/09/25/meet-the-researcher-dr-zhang/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/12/21/dr-zhang-on-persisters/
Lisa Cunningham, of Switzerland County High School, examines a tick under a microscope as part of a campus visit for the Tick INsider program. More than a dozen Indiana high school students are trained to collect ticks around the state so that Purdue scientists can analyze them and map the pathogens present in the state’s tick population. (Purdue Agricultural Communication photo/Tom Campbell) Download image
WEST LAFAYETTE, Ind. – Almost anyone spending time outdoors knows about the link between ticks and Lyme disease. But there may be far more lurking in tick bites than previously thought – a cocktail of bacteria and viruses that may uniquely affect each bite victim and inhibit the remedies meant to cure tick-borne diseases.
“Climate change is expanding tick ranges, and we’re spending more time in tick habitats all the time,” said Catherine Hill, a Purdue professor of entomology and vector biology. “As we come into more contact with ticks, we increase the likelihood of being bitten and contracting a tick-borne disease. We’re finding that it’s not just one microbe these ticks could pass on to us. It’s like a little microbe party in there, and we need to figure out how their interplay can affect human health.”
To build that understanding, Hill and scientists in her lab have created the Tick INsiders program, which involves collecting Indiana ticks throughout the year to map bacteria and viruses and how these change throughout the year and throughout the state. ## high school students have been trained as citizen scientists to help with the project and have been collecting ticks since the spring of 2018.
They’ve found three types of ticks – the blacklegged deer tick, the lone star tick and the American dog tick. Those arachnids are capable of transmitting nine different pathogens that cause human illnesses, though not all have not been diagnosed in the state. The Indiana State Department of Health reports more than 100 cases of Lyme disease each year and dozens of cases of Ehrlichiosis and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
Scientists suspect that the severity of illnesses and human immune response can vary based on the cocktail of microbes – bacteria, viruses and pathogens – passed from tick to bite victim. It has been estimated that about 25 percent of ticks are co-infected with the bacteria and parasites that cause Lyme disease and Babesia, for example. And other pathogens maybe in the mix in those or other ticks.
“It’s not ‘one tick bite, one disease,’” Hill said. “It’s one tick bite with a unique complement of different microbes and pathogens, and we need to understand that diversity. We don’t know which of these pathogens and how many are transferred when ticks bite, how our bodies react, and how the interplay between our immune system and multiple microbes might affect disease outcome.”
So far, the Tick INsider program’s collections have identified hundreds of bacteria. These may include pathogens known to cause human illness, including several bacteria that cause Lyme disease. Scientists are looking at as many as 100 different bacteria that may be pathogenic.
“We already know that there is risk of contracting Lyme disease around the state – in any of Indiana’s 92 counties,” Hill said. “We’re looking for all the stuff that hasn’t been found yet but may show up at some point.”
Knowing what’s out there, and in us, may be useful for doctors who need to know the best way to treat tick-borne illnesses that affect patients in sometimes unique ways.
“This deep dive will help us to design comprehensive diagnostics that test for hundreds of potential pathogens and enable doctors to prescribe patient-specific treatment regimes – that is personalized medicine for tick-borne diseases,” Hill said.
Nine student scientists involved with the Tick INsider program spent Friday (Oct. 19) on campus learning about the analysis done on the ticks they find. They toured labs that perform DNA analysis of each tick, identifying the types of viruses and bacteria present, as well as the Purdue Bioinformatics Core, where the data are analyzed.
The Tick INsider program will take application for new students in early January. And Hill said she hopes soon to expand the program so that any Indiana resident can become trained to collect and send in ticks.
Writer: Brian Wallheimer, 765-532-0233, bwallhei@purdue.edu
Source: Catherine Hill, 765-496-6157, hillca@purdue.eduAgricultural Communications: (765) 494-8415;
Maureen Manier, Department Head, mmanier@purdue.edu
__________________
**Comment**
Great work here. It is a wise thing to get students and residents involved. They can collect ticks in areas they roam but normally might not be considered for research purposes.
I’m also extremely thankful for the increasing coverage on the interplay of other pathogens involved besides Lyme. Until quite recently, this has been viewed as a one-pathogen, one drug illness when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, mainstream medicine STILL hasn’t gotten the memo. If you go to a standard clinic, they will still test you with testing that misses over half of all cases and if you win the jack-pot and test positive for Lyme, you will get 21 days of doxy and no more. They won’t even consider other pathogens, unless you are nearly dying on a gurney.
I must disagree with Hill on climate change causing tick proliferation. According to independent Canadian tick researcher, John Scott, ticks are marvelous ecoadaptors who can survive any weather. And, in fact, mild winters are lethal to ticks: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/08/13/study-shows-lyme-not-propelled-by-climate-change/
“The hypothesis that I. scapularis ticks will expand further north in the Prairie Provinces because of climate change is not only unscientific, but deceiving.”
“For blacklegged ticks, climate change is an apocryphal issue.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30287411/
OBJECTIVES: There is controversy whether non-specific symptoms can be related to previous Lyme borreliosis (LB). Positive serology can be considered a proxy for a previous or persistent infection with LB. We assessed non-specific symptoms and serology in patients suspected of LB referred to a Lyme centre.
METHODS: Included were adult patients who visited a Lyme centre between 2008 and 2014. Before medical consultation, serum samples were taken and questionnaires on non-specific symptoms completed. The prevalence of non-specific symptoms was calculated for patients with positive and negative IgG serology. Logistic regression was used to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for an association between positive serology and non-specific symptoms.
RESULTS: Of 1439 included patients, 31.6% (455/1439) had positive serology. The most common non-specific symptoms were severe fatigue (61.4%, 883/1439), sleep disturbances (54.8%, 789/1439), and stiffness of neck/back (52.6%, 757/1439). The prevalence of severe fatigue was 53.0% (241/455) in patients with positive serology versus 65.2% (642/984) in patients with negative serology (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58-0.94). The prevalence of sleep disturbances was respectively 46.2% (210/455) versus 58.8% (579/984) (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58-0.93). The prevalence of stiffness of neck/back was respectively 47.7% (217/455) versus 54.9% (540/984) (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.67-1.06).
CONCLUSIONS: In patients referred to a Lyme centre, non-specific symptoms did not occur more frequently in patients with positive serology compared to patients with negative serology. Hence, a questionnaire on non-specific symptoms cannot be used for identifying patients with possible “post-Lyme borreliosis symptoms” in clinical practice.
________________
**Comment**
I find it increasingly baffling how “positive serology” on a test that misses over half of all Lyme cases and is commonly known as being notoriously abysmal is still being used for research purposes. Move on people! This test is worthless!
I feel sorry for the sad-suckers who didn’t get a positive. They were sent home empty-handed to continue suffering in silence. Notice that MORE of the people testing negative had a considerably higher preponderance of symptoms…..
Also, notice the symptoms….severe fatigue, sleep disturbances, and stiff back/neck. Those are notorious Lyme symptoms! In fact it screams Lyme (particularly the back/neck issue).
How about they treat these people clinically for Lyme and then retest? By giving a provoking agent, it would be interesting to see how many of these sero-negatives turn into positives.
I guess someone would have to use their God-given brain to do that….and we wouldn’t want to have to do that now would we?
