Become a Member

Your membership in NHF will impact 7 billion lives on this Planet.

Join Us


Support NHF’s Work!

Please consider making a gift today to support the NHF’s work.

Donate


Free e-List

Get the latest updates impacting your health and health freedom!

Subscribe

 

Vaccinations

 

20 years ago, the MMR vaccine was found to infect virtually all of its recipients with measles. The manufacturer Merck's own product warning links MMR to a potentially fatal form of brain inflammation caused by measles. Why is this evidence not being reported?

 

The Vaccinated Spreading Measles

The phenomenon of measles infection spread by MMR (live measles-mumps-rubella vaccine) has been known for decades. In fact, twenty years ago, scientists working at the CDC's National Center for Infectious Diseases, funded by the WHO and the National Vaccine Program, discovered something truly disturbing about the MMR vaccine: it leads to detectable measles infection in the vast majority of those who receive it.

Published in 1995 in the Journal of Clinical Microbiology and titled, "Detection of Measles Virus RNA in Urine Specimens from Vaccine Recipients," researchers analyzed urine samples from newly MMR-vaccinated, 15-month-old children and young adults and reported their eye-opening results as following:

  • Measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period.
  • In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after the children were vaccinated.
  • Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination.

The authors of this study used a relatively new technology at that time, namely, reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which they believed could help resolve growing challenges associated with measles detection in the shifting post-mass immunization epidemiological and clinical landscape. These challenges include:

  • A changing clinical presentation towards 'milder' or asymptomatic measles in previously vaccinated individuals.
  • A changing epidemiological distribution of measles (a shift toward children younger than 15 months, teenagers, and young adults)
  • Increasing difficulty distinguishing measles-like symptoms (exanthema) caused by a range of other pathogens from those caused by measles virus.
  • An increase in sporadic measles outbreaks in previously vaccinated individuals.

Twenty years later, PCR testing is widely acknowledged as highly sensitive and specific, and the only efficient way to distinguish between vaccine-strain and wild-type measles infection, as their clinical presentation are indistinguishable.

Did the CDC Use PCR Testing on the Disneyland Measles Cases?

The latest measles outbreak at Disneyland is a perfect example of where PCR testing could be used to ascertain the true origins of the outbreak. The a priori assumption that the non-vaccinated are carriers and transmitters of a disease the vaccinated are immune to has not been scientifically validated. Since vaccine strain measles has almost entirely supplanted wild-type, communally acquired measles, it is statistically unlikely that PCR tests will reveal the media's hysterical storyline – "non-vaxxers brought back an eradicated disease!"— to be true. Until such studies are performed and exposed, we will never know for certain.

Laura Hayes, of Age of Autism, recently addressed this key question in her insightful article "Disney, Measles, and the Fantasyland of Vaccine Perfection":

"Has there been any laboratory confirmation of even one case of the supposed measles related to Disneyland?If yes, was the confirmed case tested to determine whether it was wild-type measles or vaccine-strain measles?If not, why not?  These are important questions to ask. Is it measles or not? If yes, what kind, because if it's vaccine-strain measles, then that means it is the vaccinated who are contagious and spreading measles resulting in what the media likes to label ‘outbreaks’ to create panic (a panic more appropriately triggered by our 25-year history of epidemic autism).

It would be what one might call vaccine fallout.People who receive live-virus vaccines, such as the MMR, can then shed that live virus, for up to many weeks and can infect others.Other live-virus vaccines include the nasal flu vaccine, shingles vaccine, rotavirus vaccine, chicken pox vaccine, and yellow fever vaccine." (emphasis added)

Additional Evidence That the Vaccinated Are Not Immune, Spread Disease

The National Vaccine Information Center has published an important document relevant to this topic titled "The Emerging Risks of Live Virus & Virus Vectored Vaccines: Vaccine Strain Virus Infection, Shedding & Transmission." Pages 34-36 in the section on "Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses and Live Attenuated Measles, Mumps, Rubella Viruses" discuss evidence that the MMR vaccine can lead to measles infection and transmission.

Cases highlighted include:

  • In 2010, Eurosurveillance published a report about excretion of vaccine-strain measles virus in urine and pharyngeal secretions of a Croatian child with vaccine-associated rash illness.[1] A healthy 14-month-old child was given MMR vaccine and eight days later developed macular rash and fever. Lab testing of throat and urine samples between two and four weeks after vaccination tested positive for vaccine strain measles virus. Authors of the report pointed out that when children experience a fever and rash after MMR vaccination, only molecular lab testing can determine whether the symptoms are due to vaccine strain measles virus infection. They stated: "According to WHO guidelines for measles and rubella elimination, routine discrimination between etiologies of febrile rash disease is done by virus detection. However, in a patient recently MMR-vaccinated, only molecular techniques can differentiate between wild type measles or rubella infection or vaccine-associated disease. This case report demonstrates that excretion of Schwartz measles virus occurs in vaccines."

  • In 2012, Pediatric Child Health published a report describing a healthy 15-month-old child in Canada, who developed irritability, fever, cough, conjunctivitis, and rash within seven days of an MMR shot.[2] Blood, urine and throat swab tests were positive for vaccine-strain measles virus infection 12 days after vaccination. Addressing the potential for vaccine-strain measles virus transmission to others, the authors stated, "While the attenuated virus can be detected in clinical specimens following immunization, it is understood that administration of the MMR vaccine to immunocompetent individuals does not carry the risk of secondary transmission to susceptible hosts.”

  • In 2013, Eurosurveillance published a report of vaccine-strain measles occurring weeks after MMR vaccination in Canada. Authors stated, "We describe a case of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine-associated measles illness that was positive by both PCR and IgM, five weeks after administration of the MMR vaccine." The case involved a two-year-old child, who developed runny nose, fever, cough, macular rash, and conjunctivitis after vaccination and tested positive for vaccine-strain measles virus infection in throat swab and blood tests.[3] Canadian health officials authoring the report raised the question of whether there are unidentified cases of vaccine-strain measles infections and the need to know more about how long vaccine-strain measles shedding lasts. They concluded that the case they reported "likely represents the existence of additional, but unidentified, exceptions to the typical timeframe for measles vaccine virus shedding and illness." They added that "further investigation is needed on the upper limit of measles vaccine virus shedding based on increased sensitivity of the RT-PCR-based detection technologies and immunological factors associated with vaccine-associated measles illness and virus shedding."

In addition to this evidence for the disease-promoting nature of the measles vaccine, we recently reported on a case of a twice-vaccinated adult in New York City becoming infected with measles and then spreading it to two secondary contacts, both of whom were vaccinated twice and found to have presumably protective IgM antibodies.

This double failure of the MMR vaccine renders highly suspicious the unsubstantiated claims that when an outbreak of measles occurs the non- or minimally vaccinated are responsible. The assumption that vaccination equals bona-fide immunity has never been supported by the evidence itself. We have previously reported on a growing body of evidence that even when a vaccine is mandated, and 99% of a population receive the measles vaccines, outbreaks not only happen, but as compliance increases vaccine-resistance sporadic outbreaks also increase – a clear indication of vaccine failure.

There is also the concerning fact that according to 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.For more information, you can review a case report on MIBE caused by vaccine strain measles published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases in 1999, titled "Measles inclusion-body encephalitis caused by the vaccine strain of measles virus."

Global Measles Vaccine Failures Increasingly Reported

China is not the only country dealing with outbreaks in near universally vaccinated populations. Between 2008-2011, France reported over 20,000 cases of measles, with adolescents and young adults accounting for more than half of cases.[4] Remarkably, these outbreaks began when France was experiencing some of their highest coverage rates in history. For instance, in 2008, the MMR1 coverage reached 96.6% in children 11 years of age. For a more extensive review of measles outbreaks in vaccinated populations, read our article “The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not A Failure to Vaccinate.”[5]

Given that clinical evidence, case reports, epidemiological studies, and even the vaccine manufacturer's own product warnings, all show directly or indirectly that MMR can spread measles infection, how can we continue to stand by and let the media, government, and medical establishment blame the non-vaccinated on these outbreaks without any concrete evidence?

 

Endnotes

[1]Kaic B, Gjenero-Margan I, Aleraj B, “Spotlight on Measles 2010: Excretion of Vaccine Strain Measles Virus in Urine and Pharyngeal Secretions of a Child with Vaccine Associated Febrile Rash Illness, Croatia, March 2010,” Eurosurveillance 2010 15(35).

[2] Nestibo L, Lee BE, Fonesca K, et al., “Differentiating the wild from the attenuated during a measles outbreak,” Paediatr Child Health, Apr. 2012; 17(4).

[3] Murti M, Krajden M, Petric M, et al., “Case of Vaccine Associated Measles Five Weeks Post-Immunisation, British Columbia, Canada, October 2013,” Eurosurveillance Dec. 5, 2013; 18(49).

[4] Antona D, Lévy-Bruhl D, Baudon C, Freymuth F, Lamy M, Maine C, Floret D, Parent du Chatelet I, “Measles elimination efforts and 2008-2011 outbreak, France,” Emerg Infect Dis, 2013 Mar;19(3):357-64. doi: 10.3201/eid1903.121360. PubMed PMID: 23618523; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3647670.

[5] See http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/2013-measles-outbreak-failing-vaccine-not-failure-vaccinate1.

The vaccine industry has framed the dialogue where a parent must choose to vaccinate or not.

This blog is written for parents like me—parents who want a road map to decide which vaccines, if any, are worth giving to our children and when to give them.

The truth is that most parents are thoughtful and concerned and are either still exploring and trying to understand the benefits and risks to vaccines or have decided to not succumb to the polarizing rhetoric—we are neither for nor against all vaccines but would rather look at each disease and its relevant vaccine individually.

The question we ask is: Should I choose vaccination for________ ? (and fill in the blank one disease at a time). As a mother of two partially vaccinated children, I belong to this last group of parents—the parents who may choose to vaccinate for some but not all vaccines or who decide on alternate schedules.

The following are general rules of thumb (not universal laws) on how to make those decisions.

There is no ethical way to conduct a study of anti-Ebola virus vaccines and drugs in humans.  You can’t intentionally inject individuals with a deadly virus and then give an inactive placebo pill to half of those who agree to participate as they do in most controlled human clinical studies.  But what if the Ebola virus is spreading rapidly and killing hundreds or even thousands?  The public would likely demand public health officials do something even if available vaccines and drugs are still unproven.

A manufactured outbreak of Ebola would force the issue.  Something would have to be done.  The public outcry for a cure would be deafening.

Was the unfolding Ebola epidemic contrived?

In a revealing report entitled “Ebola is in America – And, Finally, Within Range Of Big Pharma,” the London-based Guardian newspaper tells how the battle against Ebola was pre-planned. [Guardian UK Oct 4, 2014]

The current media campaign of hysteria and fear about a measles “epidemic” has moved into high gear in the hope of stampeding Californians into throwing away our long-held freedom to exempt ourselves from government-coerced vaccines.  Right now, legislation is being introduced in Sacramento to jettison Californians’ right to religious and philosophical exemptions from coercive vaccinations. Every child would be forced to receive dozens of vaccinations even though such vaccinations have never been proven safe, have been linked to increasingly higher rates of autism among infants, and even though most such vaccinations contain alarming amounts of mercury, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, aluminum, live viral cells, and other toxins that are injected directly into an infant’s body with its as-yet undeveloped immune system. The National Health Federation finds this completely unacceptable.

Exemptions to mandatory (coercive) vaccinations are not the danger here.  Even with exemptions to mandatory vaccinations, the vast majority of Californians are already vaccinated, over 96.1%; and the majority of cases of measles come from adults who have already been vaccinated against the measles, in many instances more than once. This was definitely the case in the recent episode of a measles “epidemic” at Disneyland where only adults were affected and no one died.  Hardly a reason to throw away our vaccination-exemption freedoms.

We do not believe any human should be forced to vaccinate.  Parents should have the right to protect their infants from these toxic stews injected into their vulnerable bodies.

Waivers should be accessible for all humans for all reasons and the National Health Federation petitions against mandatory/coercive vaccination.  This includes public and private sector workers and children attending public and private schools.  NHF is not arguing against vaccination, we simply petition that choice remain an option, as it has been for many years now. If you feel strongly then follow through with your support by your signature.

Please sign the petition here!!

Yet again the UK government has allowed a previously banned and dangerous vaccine onto the UK market, by repackaging it and giving it a new name in a bid to deceive parents.

The first time the UK government tried this tactic and succeeded was in 1988 when the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccinations and Immunizations) sanctioned the MMR vaccine Pluserix for use in the UK. Pluserix had previously been banned in Canada, causing thousands of children to suffer irreversible side effects as a result. This vaccine went on to cause the same devastation in the UK. [1]

A DANGEROUS VACCINE

Dr. Lucjia Tomljenovic gave a full description of these devastating side effects, including encephalitis, bilateral deafness and meningitis, in her paper The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): Are They at Odds? Appalled at the committee’s behavior, she exposed exactly what was being said behind the closed doors of UK’s JCVI. She wrote:

Thus, instead of re-evaluating the vaccination policy, at least until safety concerns were fully evaluated, the JCVI choose to support the existing policy based on incomplete evidence that was available at that time.” [2]

One child who became profoundly deaf in one ear after she received the now banned vaccination, Katie Stephen, is still fighting for compensation to this day. Her mother, Wendy Stephen, is furious at her daughter’s treatment and told The Telegraph in a recent article:

“She wasn’t born this way. This was done to her by the Department of Health. They distributed pamphlets arguing that this was the right thing to do for your child, and not just that, but the right thing to do for herd immunity in the UK against these three illnesses.” [3]

Second Banned Vaccine Gets Revamp

Obviously not learning from the error of their ways, the UK government has once again potentially put thousands of lives at risk by re-introducing a banned, this time unlicensed vaccine onto the UK market.

In June 2012, the single mumps vaccine Medi-Mumps cultured on dog kidney cells was advertised for use at a number of private clinics as an alternative option to the MMR. It has since been discovered however, that Medi-Mumps is in fact the banned, unlicensed vaccine Pavivac. To cover this up, just like the MMR vaccine Pluserix, the vaccine was repackaged and given a new name.

A SHOCKING DISCOVERY

Through intensive research, we have learned that on September 13, 2012, the UK’s MHRA (Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) wrote a press release titled Advertising Investigations. The MHRA wrote:

13 September 2012

The MHRA was made aware of information presented on the Children’s Immunisation Centre (CIC) website about Medi-Mumps and a related press release. The MHRA was concerned that the information provided an unbalanced view of the safety and efficacy of the vaccine because it did not mention the MHRA’s concerns and previous CSM advice or that the product was unlicensed. (emphasis added)

We understood that the Medi-Mumps vaccine is manufactured from the same stock and processed in the same way as Pavivac mumps vaccine. (emphasis added) The MHRA, acting on advice from an independent advisory committee, the Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM), has for a number of years objected to the importation of the Pavivac product because there is insufficient information available to assure its safety, quality and efficacy. See statement from the committee on safety of medicines (82Kb) for more details.

CIC amended the websites to remove the information about Medi-Mumps.

Date case raised: 3 April 2012

Date action agreed: 2 May 2012

Date of publication: 13 September 2012” [4]

DON’T SAY WE DIDN’T WARN YOU

Amazingly in May of this year on this very site, I wrote an article titled New Vaccine Made From Dog Cells May Trigger Allergy to Dogs. [5] My article highlighted the fact that a new single mumps vaccine had been slipped into private clinics in the UK through the back door.

I highlighted that the Medi-Mumps vaccine had been advertised as being available from June 2012 in two private clinics, The Children’s Immunization Centre, who have now removed the vaccine in question from their listings [6] and The Early Onset Clinic who, at the time of this writing, are still advertising it as available today. [7]

I queried whether or not that the new vaccine could possibly be the banned vaccine Pavivac repackaged and re introduced as a new product:

“Interestingly Medi-Mumps is extremely similar to the banned vaccine Pavivac. The Pavivac vaccine was also manufactured in the Czech Republic and cultured on canine kidney cells but this vaccine was rejected by the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) in 2002 because of safety concerns.” [8]

My research was spot on and once again, vactruth.com can be proven to promote child health safety.

CONCLUSION

I would like to know just how these private clinics managed to get this so wrong. Did they not realize that they were and still are, in some cases, advertising and injecting very young children with an unlicensed, previously banned product? Do they also not realize that it has been illegal to advertise unlicensed products to the public since 2010? [9]

How can we, as healthcare consumers, ever trust our governments if they continue to sanction dangerous, banned and unlicensed products for use on our children? These are only two products that we now know about. How many other banned, unlicensed drugs, vaccines and healthcare products are being recommended for use that are repackaged and renamed?


References

  1. Jenny Hope Daily Mail Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news.php?id=3156#newspost

  2. Lucija Tomljenovic, Ph.D. The Vaccination Policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): Are They at Odds? http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf
  3. The Telegraph: Rogue Strain of MMR Vaccine ‘Caused Deafness. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9521728/Rogue-strain-of-MMR-vaccine-caused-deafness.html
  4. MHRA Advertising Investigations http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Advertisingofmedicines/Advertisinginvestigations/CON184749

  5. New Vaccine Made From Dog Cells May Trigger Allergy to Dogs http://vactruth.com/2012/05/25/vaccine-dog-cells-allergy/

  6. Children’s Immunization Clinic http://www.childrensimmunisation.com/mumps/

  7. Early Onset Clinic http://earlyonset.com/mumps-vaccine-to-be-made-available-in-uk-from-june-2012.html

  8. CSM STATEMENT FROM THE COMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF MEDICINES ADVICE THAT UNLICENSED PAVIVAC SINGLE MUMPS VACCINE SHOULD NOT BE IMPORTED OR USED November 2002 http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con2031109.pdf

  9. MHRA Information for wholesale dealers and manufacturers: Advertising of unlicensed medicines http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Medicinesregulatorynews/CON093892