China, 2015: Measles transmission among persons with prior evidence of immunity – https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26589518 “A Measles Outbreak in a Middle School With High Vaccination Coverage and Prior Evidence of Immunity Among Cases, Beijing, China.
2015 version: Blame by pediatricians and pharma bloggers for a measles outbreak, which purportedly began at Disneyland in California and in which the index case is unknown, is being placed on those who use vaccine exemptions. But there is another important side to this story which is not being heard. That is the story of the measles vaccine’s failure to protect.
“it is increasingly being considered that antibody-based definitions of vaccine success or failure may be incomplete“- Polish Journal of Microbiology, 2014.
Documented as the source of a recent measles outbreak in NYC (see Rosen et al 2014: “Outbreak of measles among persons with prior evidence of immunity, New York City, 2011“), some of what we are seeing now has less to do with “vaccine refusers” and more to do with consequences of the liability-free vaccine policy itself. When a measles vaccine fails to protect, who should be blamed?
From NVIC: “While the Disneyland outbreak of measles is conveniently being used to blame the unvaccinated and attempting to further restrict vaccination choice, it is worth remembering that the 2011 measles outbreak in Quebec, Canada happened in a community with 95-97% vaccination compliance, was started by a vaccinated person (adult), and the official statistics were skewed by significant under-reporting of vaccinated disease cases. It is said that the “official” statistics identified ~80% of cases in the Quebec outbreak as unvaccinated or unknown status, but a peer-reviewed publication (de Serres et al. 2013) reveals a different picture with a significantly higher contribution of twice-vaccinated people to the measles outbreak (48%). Let’s hope that eventually the real picture about the Disneyland measles outbreak will be similarly revealed by independent researchers.” (read the study: J Infect Dis. (2013) http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/207/6/990.long)
Rather than acknowledge this, the industry continues to call for greater and greater percentages of the population to be vaccinated, or revaccinated, over the years (Rouderfer, et al, 1993). And even more recently here in Vermont, the pharmaceutical industry representatives are claiming it is your choice as whether or not to use a pharmaceutical product, that is putting people others at risk.
Many who choose to forego measles vaccination for themselves or their children know the acknowledged risks of vaccination, and make the best choice they know how in order to protect their children’s long-term health. Those blaming and calling for removal of exemptions do not acknowledge vaccine risk, lack of liability or unintended consequences of artificial, temporary immunity. It is almost as though vaccine promoters, like shareholders, are focussed on short-term gain versus long term sustainability.
Children of mothers vaccinated against measles and, possibly, rubella have lower concentrations of maternal antibodies and lose protection by maternal antibodies at an earlier age than children of mothers in communities that oppose vaccination. This increases the risk of disease transmission in highly vaccinated populations (Waaijenborg et al, 2013) and put babies at risk as in 1989-1991 in the US (page 179). It is happening now.
The explanation by industry is that vaccine refusal is driving the latest 2015 measles outbreak; they blame exemptors for putting babies who are “too young to be vaccinated” at risk. However, what industry refuses to acknowledge is that these babies were robbed of their maternal protection.
While primary and secondary vaccine failures do occur, it is waning vaccine-immunity against measles that is the major consequence of the vaccine program. This was not an unexpected consequence; we had been warned. Even recently published mathematical models have warned us about the the risks of waning vaccine-immunity and measles outbreak which may occur as a result. For example:
Heffernan and Keeling, 2009:
“In the absence of vaccination, lifelong immunity is maintained through frequent encounters with infection, which act to boost the waning immune memory (this agrees with the findings of Whittle et al. 1999). However, when vaccination is introduced the prevalence of infection declines, which in turn reduces the amount of boosting and hence the level of immunity (in agreement with Muller 2001). What is more surprising is that the interaction between vaccination and waning immunity can lead to pronounced epidemic cycles in which the peak levels of infection can be of the orders of magnitude greater than the mean.”
Mossing, et al, 1999:
“Several studies have shown that measles epidemics can occur even in highly vaccinated populations (1-4). A variety of factors are likely to be contributory to this observation including failure to seroconvert and waning of vaccine-induced immunity (5). It is well documented from outbreak investigations that current measles vaccines protect between 90-95 percent of vaccinees from typical measles (3, 6-8). However, evidence is accumulating which suggests that vaccine derived immunity might be less protective than previously assumed. There is a growing concern that among individuals who respond to vaccine, a substantial proportion are or will become susceptible to clinical (symptomatic) or subclinical (asymptomatic) infection.”
“The results of this study suggest that measles elimination in the United States has been achieved by an effective immunization program aimed at young susceptibles combined with a highly, naturally immunized adult population. However, despite short-term success in eliminating the disease, long-range projections demonstrate that the proportion of susceptibies in the year 2050 may be greater than in the prevaccine era. Present vaccine technology and public health policy must be altered to deal with this eventuallty.”