Why Is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated? - Page 2

Why Is China Having Measles Outbreaks When 99% Are Vaccinated?

As we have explored in a previous article, "Measles: A Rash of Misinformation," the measles vaccine is not nearly as safe and effective as is widely believed. Measles outbreaks have consistently occurred in highly immunization complaint populations. For a more extensive review of the epidemiological literature on measles outbreaks happening within highly vaccine complaint populations read: The 2013 Measles Outbreak: A Failing Vaccine, Not A Failure To Vaccinate

Sadly, the latest study concludes with the recommendation that the MMR vaccine should be increased to two doses with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18–24 months. They further suggest, that in addition to another MMR vaccine, "An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females." As has been the historical response pattern of the medical establishment's pro-vaccine agenda when facing the evidence of their failed vaccine campaigns, instead of acknowledging the folly of relying exclusively on a vaccine-centric view of immunity (what about nutrition, vitamin D, improved sanitation and hygiene?) they default counter-intuitively to increasing the number of vaccines given, adding 1 or 2 'boosters' when the vaccines clearly are not working. [Take a look at other failed vaccine campaigns here, often followed by the same dead-end recommendations.] This intellectually dishonest and callous approach, in fact, is a primary driver for the expansion of already dangerously high number of vaccines that are presently populating the CDC's arguably insane immunization schedule -- a schedule with the highest number of vaccines in the world, and which we are supposed to believe has nothing to do with the exponentially increasing autism rate (1 in 5,000 in 1975; 1 in 65 today) in our country, or its shameful if not outrageous 33th-worst infant mortality rate in the developed world.  

Another highly concerning problem with the new study is its conspiculous lack of mention of the known unintended, adverse effects of vaccination. In fact, earlier this year we reported on another Chinese vaccine study that found that "42% of Drug Reactions Are Vaccine Related, groundbreaking Chinese Study Finds."

And of course, we cannot leave out mention of what is likely the greatest medical cover-up of our time: the senior vaccine scientist William Thompson at the CDC blows the whistle on how his agency covered up the autism/vaccine link for over a decade (and likely much more malfeasance still to be uncovered), and which is still ongoing, as no mainstream media group has yet to cover the facts of the story in a serious or honest manner.  How many of these Chinese infants and children will undergo neurodevelopmental regression or suffer other neurological insults as a result of using the same MMR vaccine the CDC identified as doing harm to African-American boys? We may never know, but we can be certain that they are not immune to the well-documented dangers.

Given the gravity of potential harms associated with routine vaccines, juxtaposed to the perhaps far lesser risk associated with contracting what were once considered normal, immune system building natural infections (measles), the issue here is really about balancing the pro's versus the con's, with the medical literature itself guiding parents decisions, who have the legal right and responsibility to choose what medical interventions their children should succumb to. 

For more research use our vaccination database to make an informed choice.

REFERENCES


[1] Zhifang Wang, Rui Yan, Hanqing He, Qian Li, Guohua Chen, Shengxu Yang, Enfu Chen. 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. PLoS One. 2014 ;9(2):e89361. Epub 2014 Feb 20. PMID: 24586717

[2] Vaccination and herd immunity to infectious diseases. Anderson RM, May RM Nature. 1985 Nov 28-Dec 4; 318(6044):323-9. [PubMed]  

Back to Page 1

Pages :
Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.