How Washington May Have Shown Its Complicity in the Moscow Terror Attack

A recent article on TASS:

 

...provides us with a glimpse into the Russian mindset when it comes to Washington's meddling in the recent Crocus City Hall terrorist attack which took the lives of 140 Russian civilians just after 20:00 hours Moscow time (1:00 pm EDT) on March 22, 2024.

 

The TASS article quotes a Sputnik radio interview with Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.  Here are some quotes with my bolds throughout:

 

"The very fact that within the first 24 hours [after the attack], even before the fire was put out, the Americans started screaming that it wasn't Ukraine, I think, is a piece of incriminating evidence. I can't classify it otherwise; it is evidence in and of itself....

 

The second fact to note concerns the clamor by the US that this assuredly was the work of ISIS (former name of IS - TASS).  Of course, the speed with which they were able to [come to such forthright conclusions] is astonishing. It took them only a few hours to get to a microphone, turn on the lights, summon the press and draw a conclusion about who is to blame for this horribly bloody terrorist attack.

 

"I think they’ve boxed themselves into a corner, because as soon as they started screaming that it was ISIS, all those people who work in international relations, who are political scientists and experts, recalled and reminded everyone else what ISIS really is.  You are behind all those ISIS-type structures, you - the United States, Great Britain - yourselves brought them into being."

  

For your information, the press briefing referred to in Zakharova's comments took place at 2:08 pm EDT on March 22, 2024, slightly over 24 hours after the attack began:

 

In that briefing, White House Security Advisor John Kirby makes the following comments:

 

"MR. KIRBY: — because I do you have a few things I — I’m going to try to get through here. Let me put my cheaters on.

 

First, before I go through what I had prepared to talk about, obviously, we’ve all seen the reports and the video coming out of Moscow — this violent shooting at a — looks like a shopping mall. Can’t speak much to the details of it. I mean, this was all just breaking before I came on out here.

 

So, we’re trying to get more information but really would refer to Russian authorities to — to speak to it. The images are just horrible and just hard to watch. And our thoughts, obviously, are going to be with the — the victims of this terrible, terrible shooting attack.

 

And I think, you know, you look at that video, if you have, and you got to recognize that there’s some moms and dads and brothers and sisters and sons and daughters that haven’t gotten the news yet. And this is going to be a tough day. So, our thoughts are with them."

 

This is followed by this exchange:

 

"Q Thanks, Karine. Thanks, Admiral. On the attack in Moscow, I know you’re still gathering information, but do you have any sense whether this could be linked at all to the conflict in Ukraine?

 

MR. KIRBY: There is no indication at this time that Ukraine or Ukrainians were involved in the shooting. But, again, this just broke. We’re taking a look at it. But I would disabuse you at this early hour of any connection to Ukraine."

 

As Zakharova stated, within 24 hours, the White House was already informing the world that it had decided that, even though they admitted that they had very little information, Ukraine was not connected in any way to the attack.  This is the narrative that was then propagated by the Western world's media.

 

Kirby also said this:

 

"Q On — wait. Real quick, the follow-up on Russia is: Is there any indication — there has been speculation that it shows that the protest that was brought up with Aleksey’s death, that there is some pattern of instability now in the Russian regime. Would you confirm that? Or do you think it’s too early to say that?

 

MR. KIRBY: I — I think it’s difficult with the news today to make some broader point about instability in Moscow or in Russia. Clearly, you know, there are people in — in Moscow and in Russia that object to the way Mr. Putin is governing the country.

 

But I don’t think we’re — at this early hour, we can make a link between the — the shopping mall attack and — and political motivations. I think we just — we just need to — we need more time, and we need to learn more information."

 

That's twice in a few minutes that John Kirby admits that they have little information about the attack.

 

In a March 27, 2024 press briefing, Zakharova stated this and please excuse the length of the quote but there is a lot to be unpackaged:

 

"The response of countries of the collective West to the terrorist attack (that killed and injured hundreds of civilians, including women and children) speaks volumes. This outrage was unequivocally branded as a terrorist attack. What was the initial response of the collective West countries? They started choosing words in order to avoid making direct assessments and to make it clear that they are not evaluating the tragedy in our country in line with the very same standards used to judge themselves. Subsequent developments are more than telling.

 

After realising that the Global Majority’s response is different, they understood that they would no longer be able to “sit it out” and to “juggle with words.” The Anglo-Saxons and their European allies began to make restrained statements condemning terrorists. They followed a path trodden by the “Skripals’ case,” “Novichok” and incidents involving the Nord Stream pipelines, without waiting for the results of the investigation and more or less verified official reports. They immediately found the culprit. This time, they found it inappropriate to accuse Russia. They realised that they would then turn into real global outcasts. The Kiev regime stepped in on their behalf. No one could think that these minutes and days someone would blame Russia for the grief that befell it. Such people surfaced on Bankovaya Street. I am talking about the regime of Vladimir Zelensky and the Kiev-based neo-Nazism; the collective West has been providing political and media support to this well-paid and armed regime for many years. Consequently, they told it to do this extremely dirty work once again and to blame our country. For 24 hours, Western representatives made different statements saying that they were watching, that they were not ready to make the relevant assessments so far or that they were simply feeling sad, while responding to the condemnation of terrorist attacks, words of encouragement and condolences to the victims. As I have already said, the banned ISIS terrorist organisation was selected as the culprit.

 

I would like to inform those who have “suddenly” forgotten that high-ranking German officers admitted preparing another act of sabotage against Russia two weeks ago. The media published a recording of the conversation between four persons. They were high-ranking and empowered representatives of the German armed forces who discussed the best options for destroying civilian Russian infrastructure, specifically, the Crimean Bridge. We will discuss this issue today in more detail. Following the publication of this recording, no one in Berlin was able to officially explain to German citizens and the entire international community the reasons why Germany considers it possible to discuss acts of sabotage, terrorist attacks and extremism at state level. These outrages were to be perpetrated by proxies, just as they planned it on the territory of other states. Today, we will also talk about the response of the international community to terrorist attacks perpetrated by the Zelensky regime over all these years. 

 

To divert suspicion away from the collective West, from Washington, London, Berlin (as I have said, Berlin almost expressly discussed the possibility of committing terrorist attacks in our country), Paris and other NATO countries, they needed to find some explanation, anything at all, and quickly. That’s where they decided to use ISIS. So to speak, they pulled that ace from their sleeve.

 

Just a few hours after the attack, the Anglo-Saxon mainstream media (CNN, the New York Times, and many others) began to peddle their versions, which essentially boiled down to this: the Islamic State was fully responsible. According to the Western mainstream media reports, the United States obtained intelligence as far back as early March that Wilayat Khorasan (IS-Khorasan is the terrorist group’s subdivision in Afghanistan) was planning an attack in Moscow. However, it is extremely difficult to believe that a group of 4,000-6,000 people (according to the UN) has such extensive capabilities. Even if it does, it would be advisable to wait until the investigation is completed. But no, once again, we’ve seen this linkage between the Western political establishment, including special services, and the Western media....

 

White House spokesman John Kirby’s statement, made in Washington shortly after the attack, raised eyebrows even at home, not only outside the United States. At first, he said he needed “more time, and we need to learn more information” on the Crocus City Hall attack for the pieces of the puzzle to fall into place. Finally, one would think, someone sees reason – we need to wait for at least some preliminary examination results, for interrogations and investigative actions. But no, after just a couple of hours, the pieces must have clicked together. The White House and the State Department declared that Ukraine had no role in the attack. What grounds or what information did they have to draw this conclusion? This was absolutely unclear. One thing was clear though. They started finding excuses for the Kiev regime in order to get themselves off the hook. Everyone is perfectly aware that there is no independent Kiev regime without Western financial support or military aid.

 

As a reminder, American liberal Democrats have been financing the terrorist activities of the Kiev crime ring for a long time, not a year or two, or even five. It began under the Obama Administration, when Joe Biden, who is now President of the United States, was Vice President. In ten years, Ukraine has been transformed by the West into a centre for the spread of terrorism. However, ignoring this “dancing on the graves” organised by Ukrainian propagandists, people from all continents are extending their heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims, wishing a speedy recovery to the injured and strongly condemning this terrible attack against innocent civilians.

 

We are thankful to everyone worldwide who responded with compassion to the tragic terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall. Heads of state and government, heads of government agencies, international organisations, non-profit organisations, religious groups, and concerned citizens have all shown their sympathy in the face of this terrible tragedy. In moments like these, the true nature of a person is revealed. However, we cannot overlook the monstrous and misanthropic remarks made by Ukrainian professional propagators of terrorism. The actions and statements of the Kiev regime adepts underscore their moral decline and ugly Nazi nature. Unfortunately, the mainstream Western media fail to shed light on this dark side of modern blatant neo-Nazism in Ukraine, which is rooted in hatred towards all things Russian. They are not ridiculed in caricatures, nor are they held accountable by international human rights organisations, or subjected to “cancel culture” for their reprehensible statements and actions. Instead, they are rewarded with even more financial support. But for what purpose? As George W. Bush once remarked, to enable them to kill even more Russians. It appears that the representatives of the White House and the current Biden administration have embraced this notion, deeming it a beneficial arrangement."

If you sit down and think about Maria Zakharova's comments about Washington's haste to declare Ukraine not guilty of the Crocus City Hall terrorist attack even though they admitted that they had little information, at the very least, it looks suspicious.  How could the White House unequivocally decide that their allies in the Kiev regime were innocent less than 24 hours after the attack took place when no evidence had been gathered...unless, of course, they were complicit in its planning.

The World Economic Forum, the Fear of Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace and Your Unnecessary Existence

Over the past five years, the global public has become increasingly aware of the World Economic Forum, a collection of global elites who believe that they have the solution to every problem that ails humanity.  With the growth in the importance of artificial intelligence (AI), it's not surprising that the WEF weighs in on this global phenomenon.

  

In this posting:

 

...the WEF makes the following observations (with my bolds throughout):

 

1.) Emerging technologies including AI will disrupt jobs and employees’ skills in the coming years.

 

2.) Around a fifth of workers in the US say they fear AI will make them obsolete, a phenomenon dubbed “FOBO” (fear of obsolescence).

 

3.) The World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs report finds that some roles will never be replaced and that AI will lead to job growth in some areas, while upskilling will be key.

 

The author of the piece, Kate Whiting, Senior Writer for the WEF, then goes on to provide us with the following:

 

"Imagine waking up one day and finding your job has been automated overnight by intelligent machines. Then you discover even the career you dreamed of pursuing next has already been mastered by AI. 

 

Quickly, more and more human domains once thought impossible to replicate – art, music, emotion – fall prey to advancing algorithms until all uniquely human talent and purpose dwindles in the face of superior robotic counterparts. Soon your very existence becomes trivial … unnecessary."

 

It would appear that if anyone should be experiencing FOBO, it's Ms. Whiting because she goes on to inform us that the preceding paragraphs were written by AI.

 

Here is a graphic from Gallup that shows us the growing percentage of American workers that are concerned about becoming obsolete because of technological advancements:

 

Gallup and the WEF also note that certain demographics are more concerned about a technological takeover than others:

 

The author goes on to state the following:

 

"Is FOBO justified? It largely depends on the profession you’re in as to how many tasks can be automated, but humans will always need to be kept in the loop to some extent – with their work augmented by AI. 

 

Routine and repetitive tasks are the ones AI is most likely to automate, according to the World Economic Forum’s Jobs of Tomorrow whitepaper, whereas critical thinking and complex problem-solving could be augmented by the technology.

 

Only 16.1% of an HR manager’s job, for example, shows potential for automation and 22.2% for augmentation, according to the report.

 

But there are some roles AI will never be able to replace, and in fact, careers in agriculture, education and supply chain and logistics will likely see growth."

 

I'm not sure about your personal work experience but during my career, I found human resource departments to be an essentially useless appendage with many companies that I worked for totally abandoning the use of HR personnel.

  

Being the provider of solutions to all problems facing humanity, the WEF provides a solution to the problem of becoming obsolete:

 

"In the next five years, employees estimate that 44% of workers’ skills will be disrupted, meaning upskilling and life-long learning are now more essential, says the Future of Jobs Report 2023.

 

The skills most in demand are those that AI can’t replace, including analytical thinking, empathy and active listening, and leadership and social influence.

 

AI will also create new fields of work, with growing opportunities for: “trainers”, “explainers” and “sustainers”, the Forum’s white paper, Jobs of Tomorrow: Large Language Models and Jobs, found."

  

Here two summary graphics from the aforementioned WEF white paper on the jobs of tomorrow showing which jobs have the highest potential for large language automation and augmentation:

 

 

In an "Editor's Picks" from its website, the WEF makes the following observations about the fear of becoming obsolete in the age of AI:

  

"As generative AI rapidly evolves, a new fear grips the workforce: FOBO, the Fear of Becoming Obsolete. A recent Gallup survey reveals a 7-point increase since 2021 in US workers who believe new technologies threaten their jobs, reflecting a growing sense of anxiety about AI's impact on the job market. Experts predict that 44% of skills will be disrupted within the next five years, further fueling these concerns.

 

AI brings opportunities amidst the disruption

 

However, the rise of AI presents a double-edged sword. While some fear job losses, 50% of organizations anticipate AI-driven job growth. Companies are rapidly adopting generative AI, with specialists in AI and Machine Learning topping the list of fast-growing professions. This suggests that workers can leverage the situation by upskilling themselves in AI.

 

Human skills remain key

 

Despite the AI wave, human faculties hold their ground. AI fluency ranks only third on the list of desirable skills by 2027, trailing behind analytical and creative thinking. This underscores the enduring value of uniquely human capabilities, even in an increasingly automated world.

 

Cautious optimism among workers

 

Despite the anxieties surrounding FOBO, the overall sentiment towards AI remains positive, as revealed by a global study by PwC. While some express concerns, a third believe it will enhance their productivity and efficiency by freeing them from routine tasks and allowing them to focus on developing more complex and marketable skills."

 

So, the global ruling class's solution to becoming obsolete is for workers to "upskill".  Is a college graduate worker in their fifties really going to have the ability or desire to upskill when the potential for retirement is only ten to fifteen years away?  Is a worker who didn't graduate from high school going to have the capability or financial resources to upskill in artificial intelligence technology?

  

Welcome to the WEF's AI-based dystopian future which the global elite claim is the "steam engine of the Fourth Industrial Revolution" as shown here:

You'll do nothing, own nothing and be happy.  Just put up, shut up and eat your insects.

The Prescient Terrorist Attack Warning by the U.S. Embassy in Russia

This appeared on the U.S. Embassy in Russia website on March 7, 2024:

 

Note the specific warning that U.S. citizens in Russia should avoid attending concerts.  That would seem to be a rather specific recommendation in light of the events of last evening in Moscow.  Only the timing was a bit off.

Here is a quote from Russia's Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova from a press conference on March 22, 2024 when asked about the increasing militarization of the European Union

"Instigated by the West, the Ukrainian Nazis don’t think twice before perpetrating terrorist attacks against civilian infrastructure and civilians in Russian cities. The current EU leadership and EU member countries which supply Kiev with weapons and provoke it to commit international crimes should be held equally accountable for these actions."

Bill C-65 - Canada's Election Act and MP Pension Greed

Canada's Trudeau government recently introduced Bill C-65 entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act".  Here is a summary of the bill:

 

"This enactment amends the Canada Elections Act to, among other things,

(a) provide for two additional days of advance polling;

(b) authorize returning officers to constitute polling divisions that consist of a single institution, or part of an institution, where seniors or persons with a disability reside and provide for the procedures for voting at polling stations in those polling divisions;

(c) update the process for voting by special ballot;

(d) provide for the establishment of offices for voting by special ballot at post-secondary educational institutions;

(e) provide for new requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information;

(f) establish new prohibitions and modify existing prohibitions, including in relation to foreign influence in the electoral process, the provision of false or misleading information respecting elections and the acceptance or use of certain contributions; and

(g) expand the scope of certain provisions relating to the administration and enforcement of that Act, including by granting the Commissioner of Canada Elections certain powers in respect of any conspiracy or attempt to commit, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to, a contravention of that Act.

The enactment also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer must make a report on the measures that need to be taken to implement a three-day polling period, a report on the measures that need to be taken to enable electors to vote at any place in their polling station, a report on the feasibility of enabling electors to vote at any polling station in their electoral district and a report proposing a process for the determination of whether a political party has as one of its fundamental purposes the promotion of hatred against an identifiable group of persons."

 

Of course, Canada's taxpayer-funded, bought and paid for media was all gaga about the benefits to Canadian voters of the changes to Canada's voting laws as shown here:

..and here:

 

Making it easier for Canadians to vote and more secure for the nation's democracy.  Who could possibly find any fault with these wonderful ideas?  It's nice to see that the Trudeau government has moved to improve Canada's voting ecosystem.

 

Bill C-65 is an attempt to modernize Canada's Election Act which was originally passed in 2000 which states this:

 

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.

 

This was an effort to codify Canada's election dates and ensure that governments didn't use election dates to benefit their own agendas, an effort which has been an utter failure.

 

There is, however, one aspect of the recently proposed Bill C-65 that received almost no attention from the media.  Hidden in amongst the mind numbingly boring legalese, we find this innocuous little paragraph:

 

Election dates:

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election. Insertion start However, if Monday, October 20, 2025 would be the day fixed for voting at a general election under this subsection, that general election must instead be held on Monday, October 27, 2025 .

 

Now, you may think that there is no big deal with the Trudeau/Freeland Liberals moving the fixed election date for 2025 by one week from October 20th to October 27th but you couldn't be more wrong.

 

According to Canadian law, Members of Parliament must serve for six years before they qualify for their gold-plated, taxpayer-funded MP pensions as quoted here:

For pensionable service accrued prior to January 1, 2016, a plan member with 6 years of service may receive their pension as early as age 55. 

For pensionable service accrued on or after January 1, 2016, a plan member with 6 years of service may receive an unreduced pension at age 65.  

 

Canada's election in 2019 was held on October 21, 2019 meaning that MPs who were first elected in 2019 won't qualify for their MP pensions until October 21, 2025.  If the election were to be held on October 20, 2025, a significant number of MPs would not receive their pensions.

 

In 2019, 27 percent of MPs elected were rookies; 38 were Conservatives, 24 were Liberals, 21 were Bloc Québécois, 7 were NDP and 1 was Green.  Among the Liberals first elected in October 2019, we have Steven Guilbeault, Canada's current Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Adam van Kouverden, Parliamentary Secretary to Steven Guilbeault and Helena Jaczek, former Receiver General for Canada and Minister Responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario.  Although he was first elected in a by-election on February 25, 2019, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh who is single-handedly responsible for the supply and confidence agreement which is keeping the Trudeau/Freeland government in power, will qualify for his pension on February 26, 2025 which explains his desire to keep the current government alive until at least that date.

 

So, while B-65 has the appearance of making Canada's electoral system fairer, in fact, I would suggest that it's entire purpose is to ensure that certain Members of Parliament receive their taxpayer-funded pensions.

 

Three words - greedy, corrupt bastards.

Measles - Natural Immunity and Adult Vaccination

Public health officials (yes, the same ones that promoted COVID-19 vaccines) are now on to their next viral "boogeyman", measles.  As background, like many people particularly baby boomers, when I was younger, I had both red/hard measles also known as rubeola and German measles also known as rubella.  Given the recent advice being offered by public health officials that ALL people should be vaccinated against measles, I wondered if there were any studies that compared vaccine-induced immunity to measles to natural immunity among the vast community of adults who have already had one or both types of measles.

 

Let's start with this announcement from Canada's  Chief Public Health Officer, Teresa Tam:

 

 

Note the following recommendations:

 

1.) I strongly advise everyone in Canada to be vaccinated with two doses of a measles vaccine, especially before travelling.

 

2.) Adults should ensure they have received two doses of a measles-containing vaccine if they were born in 1970 or later, and one dose of a measles-containing vaccine if born before 1970.

 

Notice that Canada's Chief Public Health Officer states absolutely nothing about natural immunity conferring protection from measles, particularly for adults born prior to 1970.

 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the following  vaccination recommendation applies for adults:

 

"People who are born during or after 1957 who do not have evidence of immunity against measles should get at least one dose of MMR vaccine."

 

Evidence of immunity is defined as follows:

 

"Acceptable presumptive evidence of immunity against measles includes at least one of the following:

 

1.) written documentation of adequate vaccination

 

a.) one or more doses of a measles-containing vaccine administered on or after the first birthday for preschool-age children and adults not at high risk

 

b.) two doses of measles-containing vaccine for school-age children and adults at high risk, including college students, healthcare personnel, and international traveler

 

2.) laboratory evidence of immunity

 

3.) laboratory confirmation of measles

 

4.) birth before 1957"

 

Note that the CDC is using a 1957 birth year and that Canada's CPHO is using a 1970 birth year.  It is also interesting to observe that, unlike Canada's Chief Public Health Officer who advises that all Canadians should be vaccinated,  the CDC has an extensive list of people who should NOT get the MMR vaccine:

If adults who were born during or after 1957 plan to travel internationally, these are the CDC's recommendations:

 

"Teenagers and adults born during or after 1957 without evidence of immunity against measles should have documentation of two doses of MMR vaccine, with the second dose administered no earlier than 28 days after the first dose."

 

Here's another quote from the CDC in a March 2024 update:

 

"Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, up to 90% of the people close to them can also become infected if they are not protected by vaccination (or, less commonly, prior infection)."

 

Here is a listing of MMR and MMRV (measles, mumps, rubella and varicella) vaccines used in the United States from the CDC:

 

1.) M-M-R II® is a combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine manufactured by Merck & Co, Inc.

2.) PRIORIX® is a combination measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals (GSK).

3.) ProQuad® is a combination measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (MMRV) vaccine manufactured by Merck & Co, Inc.

The CDC states that both serologic and epidemiologic evidence indicate that vaccine-induced measles immunity appears to be long-term and probably lifelong in most persons.  Studies indicate that one dose of vaccine confers long-term, probably lifelong, protection against rubella.

 

Now, let's look at a study which compares long-term immunogenicity after measles vaccine versus infection with the measles virus which appears on the National Institutes for Health National Library of Medicine website:

 

The authors of the Italian study used 611 subjects, both students and residents of the Medical School of the University of Bari and tested their immunogenicity (IgG) to measles, dividing them into two groups; those vaccinated with two doses of an anti-MMR vaccine (measles, mumps and rubella) and those who had a self-reported history of measles infection.  In Italy, the measles vaccine protocol was introduced in the 1970s with two doses of MMR live virus vaccine being recommended in 2003 with the first dose at 12 to 15 months of age and the second at 5 to 6 years of age.

 

For each subject, a 5 mL serum sample was collected to assess the immunity and susceptibility status.  Vaccinated individuals who had a non-protective immunogenicity (IgG) titre received an MMR vaccine with a second blood test being performed 20 to 25 days later to measure the IgG titre.  If the value did not exceed the cutoff, the individual was classified as non-seroconverted and a second vaccine dose was administered 28 days after the first booster.

 

The authors observed the following with my bolds:

 

1.) Although the immune responses induced by the vaccine are qualitatively similar to those induced by infection, antibody levels are lower after vaccination. Vaccination at a young age enhances the quality and quantity of the antibody response but has a minor effect on T cell responses. However, over time, virus-specific antibodies and vaccine-induced CD4 + T cells decrease, accounting for the secondary vaccine failure rate of 5% 10–15 years after immunization.

 

2.) The authors assessed each subject's protective antibody survival or PAS which is defined as the time elapsed from the second dose of routine MMR vaccine to the evaluation of antibody titer (years) or the time elapsed between natural measles infection to the evaluation of antibody titer (years).  They found the following:

 

"The group that had been infected by the wild virus have far longer protective antibody survival to measles than those who receive the measles vaccine."

Here is a graphic which shows the results of their analysis:

3.) "While further research is needed, our study clearly showed that natural immunity is both more robust and longer-lasting than vaccine immunity. However, this finding should not lead to a questioning of the role of measles vaccination."

Let's close with this data from the CDC showing how measles vaccine effectiveness is quite widely variable as follows:

 

One dose - 1 dose of MMR vaccine is—

93% effective for measles (range: 39%–100%)

78% effective for mumps (range: 49%−92%)

97% effective for rubella (range: 94%–100%)

Two doses - 2 doses of MMR are—

97% effective for measles (range: 67%–100%)

88% effective for mumps (range: 32%–95%)

 

Let me be clear - I am not against vaccinating for measles given that there is a risk of severe and permanent health complications from a measles infection.  Since measles vaccines were introduced in the early 1960s and the MMR vaccines were developed in 1971, the incidence of measles has been reduced by 99.9 percent with an estimated 20 million lives being saved so there is little doubt that the measles vaccine is effective.  That said, the study quoted in this posting shows clearly that infection with the wild measles virus confers longer-lasting immunity to measles than the vaccines which suggests that vaccinating adults who have had measles is probably unnecessary and fear-mongering about requiring measles vaccines for adults by public health officials is just that, fear-mongering, about a vaccination that is not necessarily based on science and will only serve to "fill the wallets" of Big Pharma.