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.

The COVID-19 Vaccination Assembly Line

Just a very brief posting on something that many of us have anticipated over the past two or three months as it became apparent that 2 doses of COVID-19 vaccines would not prove to be effective over the medium-term.  Here's the latest from the Times of Israel:

 

 

Only time will tell us whether this is due to a new variant, the fact that children down to the age of five years are not yet fully vaccinated or the fact that the current COVID-19 vaccines have a very short effective "shelf life" once they are injected.  With Israel being the COVID-19 vaccine "canary in the coal mine", one has to wonder how long it will be before other nations follow the fourth dose protocol.

And, once again, this is what happens when drugs are not fully tested before they are rolled out for public consumption.

A Study on the COVID-19 Attack Rate Among Travellers

A fascinating bit of research from Israel provides us with an analysis of the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and their ability to prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

The paper which is entitled "High attack rate of COVID-19 in an organized group of vaccinated travellers to Iceland" is dated September 23, 2021 (acceptance date) and is written by members of the Faculty of Medicine at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the Department of Clinical Microbiology and Ifenctious Diseases at the Haddassah Hebrew University Medical Center and Clalit Health Services also located at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

 

The paper opens by noting that, while international travel was halted to control the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus throughout 2020, following the global vaccination plans put in place late in 2020, it appeared that vaccinated travellers could be assured of safe, COVID-19-free travel.  As such, there was an increase in the number of outgoing Israeli travellers.

 

On August 3, 2021, approximately two months after the Delta variant caused a fourth wave of infections in Israel, an organized group of 25 Israeli travellers departed from Tel-Aviv for Rejkjavik with a four hour connection in Vienna for a 12 day tour in Iceland.  All of the travellers were fully vaccinated with 2 doses of Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine (now known as Comirnaty) with one tourist having been vaccinated only a month prior to the trip and all underwent an RT-PCR test within 72 hours of departure for the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which showed that none of the travellers were infected.  

 

Here is a listing of the "reality on the ground" for the tourists while in Iceland:

 

1.) a fully vaccinated bus driver was used and the entire tour took place on the same bus. 

 

2.) since the weather was cold, the bus windows were closed.

 

3.) on most days the travellers were on the bus for up to 8 hours at a time.

 

4.) the travellers were instructed to wear disposable face masks with partial compliance.

 

5.) the travellers had little indoor contact with locals or other tourists.

 

Here is some background information on the 25 travellers:

 

1.) median age - 63 years (range 59 to 67 years)

 

2.) females - 13 out of 25

 

3.) medical history - 8 had diabetes, 8 had hypertension/ischemic heart disease, 5 were overweight, none suffered from immunosuppression, none had recovered from a past COVID-19 infection.

 

On August 13, 2021 (the tenth day of the tour), the Israeli travellers underwent a pre-departure RT-PCR test.  Of the 25 travellers, 15 were shown to be SARS-CoV-2 positive which required that they stay in isolation in Reykjavik for ten days prior to returning to Israel.  The ten travellers who tested negative in Iceland returned to Israel, however, upon landing, six were found to be positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus leaving four travellers who were non-infected.  Overall, the attack rate for COVID-19 was 84 percent with 21 out of 25 travellers being infected.

 

Here is a list of the symptoms experienced by the 21 positive travellers:

 

1.) fever - 11 travellers

 

2.) cough - 13 travellers

 

3.) loss of taste/smell - 5 travellers

 

4.) upper respiratory infection - 3 travellers

 

5.) sore throat - 1 travellers

 

6.) shortness of breath - 1 travellers

 

7.) asymptomatic - 2 travellers

  

None of the 19 travellers that tested positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus required hospitalization and most cases were mild.  It is unknown whether the Delta variant was the infecting virus and, given that several travellers were already symptomatic during the trip, it appears that one of the travellers had acquired the disease in Israel and was the source of the outbreak although it is possible that the infection was acquired during the trip.

Here is a concluding quote from the paper:

 

"The presented outbreak demonstrates that prolonged exposure during travel poses a very high risk for infection, even among vaccinated persons; during a 12-day travel, the attack rate was 84%. This very high breakthrough infection rate might be explained by several factors. First, close and prolonged exposure probably increases the chance that the virus will evade the nost immune system, as was described in influenza outbreaks. A pre-departure negative PCR test cannot rule out infection in its incubation period, especially when travelling in a large group. In addition, it is challenging to maintain the basic rules of COVID-19 prevention (i.e. masking, social distancing and not crowding indoors) during group travel. Repeated testing for SARS-CoV-2 during a trip by rapid antigen test may be an option, but it depends on the personal will of each traveller. Needless to say, appearance of typical symptoms, even if mild, requires personal responsibility for immediate isolation and PCR testing. Such a behaviour might prevent an extensive outbreak.  Lastly, it may be related to reduced vaccine effective ness over time, as most of these travellers (24/25, 96%) had completed the two-dose regimen >6 months before the trip...

  

When planning a trip during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, prudent travellers should consider these risks and use the recommended protective measures (e.g. masking, vaccination, avoiding crowding, travel with a small group, etc.) in order to avoid infection."

  

Before it is removed by the internet censors, here is the document in its entirety:

 

 

While some will say that the vaccine is responsible for the lack of severe cases of COVID-19 in this group of travellers, that may not be entirely accurate since it is also possible that the Delta variant presents itself as a less virulent form of illness than its Alpha variant precursor and, in addition, the real world experience with COVID-19 shows that infected individuals experience a great range of symptoms, some serious and some benign by comparison.  That said, it is interesting to note that the COVID-19 vaccine did little to prevent transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus with 84 percent of the group of travellers becoming infected.  Certainly, some of this may be related to the very short effective life of the vaccines which begs the question:

 

What type of vaccine only offers a six month (or less) period of protection from a disease?

This is NOT what we were being sold when governments began mandating universal COVID-19 vaccinations.

How the CDC Cancelled the Definition of Vaccination

Like many other things during the pandemic, even the most basic premises of science find themselves undergoing what can only be described as the "cancel culture."

 

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, let's look at how the CDC defined "vaccination" prior to September 1, 2021:

 

Note that prior to September 1, 2021 vaccinations were introduced to "produce immunity".

 

Here is the newly minted CDC definition of vaccinations which became effective on September 1, 2021:

 

 

Now, vaccinations are introduced to "provide protection".  

 

Undoubtedly, there seem to be a lot of "coincidences" during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Here is another one that also just happened to take place on September 1, 2021:

 

As you can see and as I posted here, Israelis who received the two-dose Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine regimen and who had not previously suffered from COVID-19 (i.e. are SARS-CoV-2 naive) have a far greater chance of experiencing a breakthrough infection with the Delta variant than those who had been infected previously and had not been vaccinated.  This study shows that natural immunity provides a longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 variant than those who had two doses of Pfizer's BNT162b2 vaccine.  In other words, not only does the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination not "produce immunity" even over the short-term (as defined by the pre-September 1, 2021 definition of vaccination), it doesn't appear that it "provides protection" (as defined by the post-September 1, 2021 definition of vaccination) against the Delta variant either.

 

Ins't it interesting to see how the CDC has changed the definition of vaccination to fit the limitations of at least one of the COVID-19 vaccines?  There's nothing like cancelling what doesn't fit the mainstream pandemic narrative.

Adam Schiff, Social Media and Censoring the Vaccination Opposition Narrative

In this posting, I'm only going to add a few comments at the end.  I'll let the words of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA28) from back in February 2019 do the talking, keeping in mind that he sent the following letters during the measles outbreak in 2019.

This is what appeared on Adam Schiff's website:

Here is the letter to Google's Chief Executive Officer, Sundar Pichai:

Here is the letter to Facebook's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Zuckerberg:

Let's once again look at the four questions that Adam Schiff asked of both companies:

1.) Does content which provides medically inaccurate information about vaccines violate your terms of service?

2.) What action(s) do you currently take to address misinformation related to vaccines on your platforms? Are you considering or taking additional actions?

3.) Do you accept paid advertising from anti-vaccine activists and groups on your platforms? How much has been spent in the past year on advertising on this topic?

4.) What steps do you currently take to prevent anti-vaccine videos or information from being recommended to users, either algorithmically or as a suggested search result?

These questions beg three further questions; 

1.) Who is acting as a "vaccine expert" for Google and Facebook?  

2.) What qualifications do these "experts" have which enables them to accurately decide which information is "misinformation" and which information is scientifically sound?  

3.) Is any information that presents a negative viewpoint on vaccines and vaccinations immediately considered misinformation?

With all of this in mind, let's look back at the 2019 measles scare.  At the end of the first five months of 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced this:

By the end of 2019, this is what the measles case statistics looked like:

Of the 1,282 confirmed cases in 31 states, 128 or 10 percent required hospitalization and 61 or 4.8 percent reported complications including pneumonia and encephalitis.

While the increase in measles cases is concerning, the numbers show that the 2019 outbreak in the United States was hardly earth-shattering.  Nonetheless, this is what Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus, Director of the World Health Organization and pro-vaccine advocate had to say about the global measles problem which resulted in the deaths of and estimated 140,000 people in 2018 according to WHO's statistical modelling:

"The fact that any child dies from a vaccine-preventable disease like measles is frankly an outrage and a collective failure to protect the world’s most vulnerable children.  To save lives, we must ensure everyone can benefit from vaccines - which means investing in immunization and quality health care as a right for all.”

Given that Bill Gates, the world's most outspoken advocate of mass vaccinations, is a major funder of the World Health Organization and Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreysus' de facto boss, we at least have to question the neutrality of WHO's approach to vaccination for measles and other diseases as well as its use of statistical modelling to estimate the number of cases and deaths related to measles.  This is particularly pertinent in the COVID-19 era since we are all well aware of the inaccuracy of statistical modelling given that it is very much an example of "garbage in, garbage out".

Just in case you were wondering, there just happens to be a list of measles (MMR, MM and MMRV) vaccine-related injuries that apply to petitions for compensation filed under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program as shown (in part) here:

So, if measles vaccines are so safe, why does the United States Health Resources and Services Administration have a list of "covered conditions" for individuals seeking compensation under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?

In light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and the massive amount of information that is both promoting the pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine agendas, we should not be trusting either Google or Facebook for unbiased and completely scientifically accurate information on vaccinations and the current pandemic.

Addendum

Since money buys politicians, let's take a quick look at how much Bill Gates Inc. (aka Microsoft) has donated to the pro-vaccination Representative Adam Schiff during the 2020 election cycle:

Softening Up Americans for Forced Vaccination

One issue that has many of us concerned is the prospect of mandatory vaccinations as a solution to ending the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly since the testing process for a never-before-discovered coronavirus vaccine seems to be taking place at a greatly accelerated rate.  Nonetheless, it appears that at least some jurisdictions are "softening up" their citizens for that very likely prospect.

Let's open with this list of states showing what percentage of each state's residents got their influenza vaccination in 2018:

Over the years between 2013 and 2018, data from the CDC's Behavioural Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey showing that in 2018, on average, only 33.3 percent of Americans were vaccinated for seasonal influenza.  This information gives us some sense of how difficult it could be for Washington to allow American households to decide for themselves whether they wish to receive a newly developed and unprecedented vaccine for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Now, let's get to the topic of this posting.  Here is a document from the Florida Airports website that must be completed by each arriving traveller or member of a family:

Notice the highlighted portion of the document.  Under Executive Order 20-80 and the Florida Department of Health declaration of a Public Health Emergency, the State Health Officer and Surgeon General can order any individual to undergo the following:

1.) examination

2.) testing

3.) vaccination

4.) isolation

5.) quarantining

Under the aforementioned Florida Executive Order 20-80 which was issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic on March 23, 2020, we find the following:

Note that EO 20-80 only refers to "isolation or quarantine" in Sections 1 Parts A, B, C and E, however, in Part E it states that:

"...it shall be the duty of every state and county attorney, sheriff, police officer, and other appropriate city and county officials upon request to assist the Department of Health in enforcing any isolation or quarantine or order of the Department of Health issued pursuant to this Order."  

The use of the word "order" opens up the ability of law enforcement and other government officials to force vaccinations on the public.

Now, let's look at the Florida Department of Health declaration of a Public Health Emergency dated March 1, 2020:

The declaration makes specific reference to quarantine and isolation, however, it does open the public up to "other interventions" which could well include forced vaccinations.

This is just a single example of the laws being passed by states that will ultimately "soften up" the American public and pave the way for forced vaccinations.  And, if you think that Donald Trump will come to Americans's rescue, here's a quote from the current president about MMR vaccinations during the April 2019 measles outbreak:

"They have to get the shots.  The vaccinations are so important, this is really going around now.  They have to get the shots."

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, this is how many measles cases resulted in such alarm:

Of the 1282 measles cases in the United States during 2019, only 128 cases ended up in hospitalization with 61 having complications including pneumonia and encephalitis.  By comparison to the COVID-19 case and death count, the measles outbreak was an insignificant event.

In closing, we also need to remember this comment from Donald Trump on May 15, 2020 when he introduced America's new vaccine czar:

"Another essential pillar of our strategy to keep America open is the development of effective treatments and vaccines as quickly as possible.  Want to see if we can do that very quickly.  We’re looking to — when I say “quickly,” we’re looking to get it by the end of the year, if we can.  Maybe before.  We’re doing tremendously well…

Then, my administration cut through every piece of red tape to achieve the fastest-ever, by far, launch of a vaccine trial for this new virus, this very vicious virus.  And I want to thank all of the doctors and scientists and researchers involved because they’ve never moved like this, or never even close….

This historic partnership will now bring together the full resources of the Department of Health and Human Services with the Department of Defense.  And we know what that means.  That means the full power and strength of military — the military.  And that — really, talking about the logistics — if we get it, when we get it.  That means the logistics, getting it out, so that everybody can take it." (my bolds)