As stated in the previous article, there is definitive scientific evidence that demonstrates completely that vaccines generate an antibody response within the body. It's that measurement, whether or not the vaccine produces antibodies, which determines if the vaccine is "effective." And that's something that we hear everyday, that vaccines are "safe and effective." The medical and scientific definition for vaccine effectiveness, is that the vaccine produces an antibody response. What’s lacking in that research though is the duration by which the body retains that antibody memory, because most clinical trials only measured the antibody levels of participating individuals for a few weeks, or months after vaccination. For many vaccinated individuals who have had their antibody titers tested later in life, they’ve discovered that their titer markers declined significantly or disappeared completely, within 2-10 years.
Unfortunately, the tested, measured and proven effect of vaccination, antibody production, has been grossly exaggerated. For example, most people believe the scientifically proven effect of vaccination — the whole point and purpose behind the vaccination program — is to create immunity. Such a belief often goes hand in hand with the idea that "vaccine immunity" lasts a lifetime, that vaccination creates herd immunity, or that vaccines eradicate illnesses and save lives, etc.
Currently, those ideas are nothing more than claims - claims supported by correlative evidence. The claims are either true or they are false, and right now I'm not trying to argue whether or not they are true. At this point in time, all I'm trying to point out is the obvious fact that the appropriate scientific studies that would prove causation and prove the claims true, such studies have never been done.
Vaccines have never been scientifically tested and measured to see if they cause the creation of immunity, either temporary immunity or life lasting. And remember, immune means something entirely different than asymptomatic or symptom reduction. Vaccines have also never been measured to see whether or not a vaccination rate of 95% in a group caused the group to offer herd immunity protection to vulnerable infants or immune compromised people.
Unfortunately all the various claims have been repeated so often by doctors and media, and all of the statements have been used interchangeably, that now, when people hear the statements "vaccines work" or "vaccines are effective" they believe those statements actually mean "vaccines create immunity." This phrase interchange has been repeatedly used by the highest levels of government. One example can be witnessed during education provided by the CDC. In a webinar on measles, the nurse educator refers to prior receipt of two measles vaccines, as "prior evidence of immunity." To equate the statement "vaccines are effective" with the statement "vaccines create immunity," is very misleading because those phrases ARE NOT scientifically equivalent.
The true scientifically equivalent statement to "vaccines work" or "vaccines are effective" is that "vaccines create antibodies within the body." Nothing more can be stated with equivalent scientific certainty. For almost all vaccines in use around the world, antibody production was the only tested, measured and proven effect demonstrated to be caused by the vaccine during clinical testing.
In contrast to the commonly held beliefs that vaccines create lifelong immunity, and herd immunity, etc, is the reality that outbreaks of illness are occurring with increased frequency, in highly vaccinated populations. One recognized reason for this is because vaccine induced antibody levels wane significantly or completely in time, and the previous generations who had long lasting immunity as a result of experiencing the natural illness, many of those people have aged and died, and are no longer contributing their immunity to the group. The effect of waning vaccine antibody production was completely unexpected. When each vaccine was introduced, scientists assumed that the vaccine induced antibody levels would last a lifetime. They were wrong (more on this later). Scientists also assumed that vaccine induced antibody generation and naturally acquired immunity would behave in the same way. Again, they were wrong (and again more on this later).
Unfortunately, antibody peaks and memory retention following booster shots are sometimes found to be minimal or shorter lasting when compared to the antibody levels and memory generated after the initial vaccinations. At this point in time, it is unknown how many boosters will be required to maintain an adequate antibody level, or if vaccine antibody levels can actually be maintained through a series of booster shots.
To quote the Oxford Academic Journal, which published research titled Persistence of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Antibodies in an MMR-Vaccinated Cohort: A 20-Year Follow-up, (Link Here) the paper stated the following (emphasis mine):
Protective levels of antibodies induced by the MMR vaccine were first suggested to be lifelong; however, the levels of measles, mumps, or rubella antibodies have been shown to decline over time, faster after vaccinations than when naturally acquired.
...We have followed the kinetics of antibody persistence in the same MMR-vaccinated cohort in repeated samples obtained since 1982 and found that all of the antibodies induced by MMR vaccine wane over time. This was shown to happen especially when the incidence of measles, mumps, and rubella became very low in Finland and natural diseases did not boost the once-gained antibody levels.
...The present study confirms the continuous waning of vaccine-induced immunity already seen in our previous studies as well as in other studies. Fifteen years after the second MMR vaccination, the mean antibody levels were roughly one-third of the levels measured right after the second dose. The rate of antibody decline was rapid soon after the second dose, and the decline happened simultaneously with decreasing circulation of wild virus in Finland. During the last 7 years of the follow-up (from 1995 to 2002), the antibody decline has been relatively slow, possibly predicting a long persistence of low-level antibodies. The majority (88%) of vaccinees still had a protective level (⩾200 mIU/mL) of measles antibodies. Although all vaccinees were seropositive for rubella antibodies, a protective antibody level was found in 64% or 83% of vaccinees, depending on the selected cutoff for protection (15 or 10 IU/mL). To date, an antibody level for protection against mumps has not been determined. Regardless of the declining antibody levels during the past 10 years—the period without indigenous measles, mumps, or rubella in Finland—a few imported cases of these diseases have not caused any outbreaks. This can be regarded as a sign of good herd immunity achieved by the high (>95%) vaccination coverage.
Another Oxford Academic paper titled, Mumps Outbreaks in Vaccinated Populations: Are Available Mumps Vaccines Effective Enough to Prevent Outbreaks? (Link Here), states:
...studies conducted in the United States found persons vaccinated >5 years before the outbreak to be at higher risk of developing disease than persons vaccinated ⩽5 years before the outbreak, suggestive of waning immunity. In a recent study conducted at a university in Kansas during an outbreak in 2006, case patients were more likely than their roommates without mumps to have been last vaccinated with the second dose ⩾10 years earlier. In addition, studies conducted in the United Kingdom and Europe revealed lower vaccine effectiveness in older cohorts and an increased risk of developing mumps with increased time after vaccination.
In regards to a different vaccine, the DTaP or TDaP vaccines, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website (Link Here), provides the following information to mothers about whooping cough vaccination. This information states:
Adults 19 years old or older (who are not pregnant) should get only one dose of the whooping cough vaccine for adolescents and adults (called Tdap vaccine). If an adult will be around your baby and has already had Tdap vaccine, CDC does not recommend vaccination for them again. Whooping cough vaccines are effective, but unfortunately the protection they provide is not long lasting.
We regularly hear that 95% of the population needs to be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity. Nova, of PBS, looked into this further, listing figures from research published in 1993, research that provided "immunity thresholds." PBS explained these "thresholds" as meaning "the minimum percentage of immune individuals a community needs to prevent an outbreak." Again, they are using the word "immune" to mean "vaccinated." The immunity thresholds for 7 different illnesses were listed as follows:
mumps - 75-86%
polio - 80-86%
small pox - 80-85%
diphtheria - 85%
rubella - 83-85%
whooping cough - 92-94%
measles - 83-94%
To provide information from a report prepared by the CDC, which evaluated the percentage of kindergarteners who were appropriately vaccinated based on the Government recommended vaccination schedule of 2013 (and note, there are a very limited number of vaccines recommended beyond this age), the report provided the following information:
A median rate of 94.7% of kindergartners in the 2013-2014 school year received the MMR vaccine; ((range = 81.7% in Colorado to ≥99.7% in Mississippi)
A median rate of 95% of kindergarteners had received the DTaP vaccine, which protects against diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis (whooping cough); (range = 80.9% in Colorado to ≥99.7% in Mississippi)
If you reflect on the statements you regularly hear made by mainstream media on any given day, and if you reflect on the previous quotes from the CDC, Oxford Journal, and PBS, you realize that those statements actually all completely contradict each other.
I'll point out a couple of the contradictions, starting with a whooping cough discussion. Keep in mind we've been vaccinating against whooping cough for over 70 years now. The PBS table shows that 92-94% of the population needs to be immune to prevent outbreaks of whooping cough. The CDC's report shows that whooping cough vaccination coverage is high, with many areas in the US meeting 95% or better coverage in the kindergartener population. Yet on a different CDC webpage, the CDC informs us that whooping cough vaccine protection is not long lasting. It's important to point out that it's only been since 2006 that teenagers and adults now are encouraged to get a booster shot. Because adults don't pay attention to the adult vaccination recommendations, very few adults have actually requested to receive this vaccine.
If the whooping cough vaccine doesn't last long, as is stated by the CDC, and if it's only the infant and kindergarten population, and maybe the teenage population that are currently adequately vaccinated, then that means that the majority of the population, all of the adults, who constitute 77.4% of the population - well - they can't be considered immune. With a short lasting vaccine and a base of 77.4% of population having lost their vaccine induced antibodies, it's currently impossible that 92-94% of the population is immune. Media always states that low vaccination rates will cause massive outbreaks resulting in massive numbers of fatalities. They point to pre-vaccine era data as proof. On the CDC website, it states:
Before pertussis vaccines became widely available in the 1940s, about 200,000 children got sick with it each year in the United States and about 9,000 died as a result of the infection.
But a different study conducted by the CDC and published in 2007, stated that deaths from whooping cough peaked in 1923, with 9269 death occurring that year, and that paper explains that deaths from pertussis declined steadily in the 1920s. So if 1923 experienced the peak, it's unlikely that 9000 people died annually every year until the vaccine was used on a mass scale, which began in the late 1940s. And if you look at the US Vital Statistics from 1900-1940, you see that deaths from whooping cough were significantly less than 9000 annually, during much of that time.
So, it seems that the historical figures the CDC uses, are selectively chosen to hype up the fear of death from this illness. In contrast to those figures, in 2012, the US experienced the worst whooping cough outbreak since the 1950s, with about 50,000 cases of illness (this is considerable to pre-vaccine era outbreaks which ranged between 103,000 to 265,000 cases). The large 2012 outbreak resulted in 20 deaths. If that 2012 outbreak had been comparable in size to outbreaks of the past, that likely would have translated into 40-120 deaths in 2012. So 40-120 deaths in 2012 compared to 9000 deaths in the pre-vaccine era (as stated by the CDC). Today, what the health authorities and media say will happen, (massive fatalities if 92% of people aren't "immune)," is in complete opposition to what is actually happening in real life.
And to add to those figures, let's look at a different study published in 2006. This study is quoted as saying (emphasis mine):
Pertussis is the only vaccine-preventable disease on the rise in the United States, with increasing incidence in adolescents and adults related to waning immunity.
... pertussis was predominantly an infection of children aged 1 to 5 years, with maternal immunity providing passive protection during an infant’s first year of life. At that time, an average of 175,000 US cases were reported per year (incidence of approximately 150 cases per 100,000 population).
...Increased incidence [today] of pertussis in adolescents and adults relates to waning immunity and, likely, to a combination of previous underreporting and recent improvements in reporting processes. The longer the duration since vaccination, the higher the attack rate.
...Among adults with cough illness, the incidence of confirmed pertussis has been estimated at 170 to 630 cases per 100,000. The rates among adolescents were almost 2-fold higher. Data from a prospective acellular pertussis vaccine efficacy trial (APERT) extrapolate the burden of pertussis to be nearly 1 million US cases annually in persons ≥15 years old.
In the past, before a vaccine was used, whooping cough cases were reported at a rate of 150 cases per 100,000 population, and there were 9000 deaths annually (as per the CDC). Whereas this paper explains that whooping cough today is severely under-reported as doctors miss recognizing the symptoms of whooping cough, because the illness presentation has changed as a result of use of the vaccine. The paper explains that in the pre-vaccine era, the illness was experienced predominantly by children aged one to five, and in this population, the "whoop" within the cough is obvious. Today however, the illness looks, sounds and appears differently because the stereotypical "whoop" is often missing. The groups who don't whoop are infants, adolescents, adults, and the vaccinated, and these groups are the populations who are more likely to experience this illness today. The researchers state that as a result of waning vaccine immunity, the incidence of confirmed pertussis is estimated to be between 170-630 cases per 100,000 adults, and they explain the rate is double that in adolescents. That juxtaposition, a rate of 150 reported cases per 100,000 population in the pre-vaccine era, compared to a rate of 170-630 (or double that) confirmed cases per 100,000 today, is enough to make one scratch their head in confusion.
Despite widespread use of a vaccine for three full generations, these numbers suggest that the rate of pertussis has actually increased and there is more whooping cough today than before a vaccine. Furthermore, despite a marked increase in rate of illness, the death rate has done the opposite, with a steady decline, and the CDC's study showed this decline began long before a vaccine was ever available. So, although media forecasts that low vaccination rates will result in "massive" outbreaks comparable to the past, (that's a funny statement when you contemplate that there might actually be more whooping cough today), the projection of massive numbers of fatalities just doesn't jive will real life data.
Mumps, Measles and MMR Vaccination
Moving on, let's turn our attention to measles and mumps. The MMR vaccine for measles mumps and rubella has been used widely for 55 years now. According to PBS, 75-86% of the population needs to be immune to prevent mumps outbreaks. The CDC report on vaccination coverage shows that that vaccine threshold has been attained, for mumps, in the kindergarten population. For measles, a threshold of 83-94% of the population needs to be immune. And according to the CDC, a median rate of 94.7% has been established (with a low of 81.7% in Colorado, and a high of 99.7% in Mississippi). So that 83-94% threshold has been nearly attained across the US, for measles.
Now then, according to research published in the journal of Clinical Infectious Disease, mumps vaccine protection begins fading after 5 years. Yet for decades now, the final MMR vaccine has been administered at age six. That means the majority of the population cannot be immune. Whenever there is another mumps outbreak, the media uses headlines that generate fear and the doctors interviewed appear to scratch their heads speculating at what is causing the increased outbreaks. The conclusion of all such reporting is that although the outbreaks are occurring in highly vaccinated populations, it's the unvaccinated who are very worrisome. Or they state outright that the unvaccinated are dangerous.
Let's spend some time looking at three documents published by the CDC, which provide information on MMR vaccination. The first paper we'll look at, was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in 2015, and was about measles. This research states (emphasis mine):
Measles is a contagious, viral rash illness; complications include pneumonia and encephalitis and can result in death. High coverage with 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and improved measles control in the World Health Organization (WHO) Region of the Americas resulted in the declaration of measles elimination in the United States in 2000.
Two doses of MMR vaccine are generally sufficient to provide long-lasting protection against measles. Nonetheless, measles virus (MeV) is one of 3 viruses targeted by the MMR vaccine, and third doses have been administered during mumps outbreaks among highly vaccinated populations.
...The immunogenicity of the MeV component of a third MMR dose has not been studied. We assessed the magnitude and duration of an aggregate MeV neutralizing antibody response, cell-mediated immune response, and immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibody avidity before and after a third MMR dose (MMR3) in a healthy, young adult population.
...A modest but [statistically] significant boost in MeV geometric mean neutralizing antibody concentrations occurred 1 month and 1 year after MMR3 receipt, compared with baseline. However, almost all subjects were MeV seropositive prior to receiving MMR3, and subjects' antibody levels returned to near-baseline levels 1 year after vaccination.
...Although 95% of vaccinated persons have detectable MeV antibodies 10–15 years after the second MMR dose, waning immunity occurs after 2 doses, and 2-dose failures have been documented.
...While a third MMR dose may successfully immunize the rare individual who did not respond after 2 doses, MMR3 is unlikely to solve the problem of waning immunity in the United States.
The second CDC document is published on their website, and its title is "Recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for Use of a Third Dose of Mumps Virus–Containing Vaccine in Persons at Increased Risk for Mumps During an Outbreak." Here they provide the following information (emphasis mine):
A substantial increase in the number of mumps outbreaks and outbreak-associated cases has occurred in the United States since late 2015. To address this public health problem, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviewed the available evidence and determined that a third dose of measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine is safe and effective at preventing mumps. During its October 2017 meeting, ACIP recommended a third dose of a mumps virus–containing vaccine* for persons previously vaccinated with 2 doses who are identified by public health authorities as being part of a group or population at increased risk for acquiring mumps because of an outbreak.
...The guidance was based on limited data and provided criteria for health departments regarding when to consider use of a third dose in specifically identified target populations. Additional evidence on effectiveness and safety of the third dose of MMR vaccine recently became available and was presented to ACIP during 2017. This report summarizes the evidence considered by ACIP regarding use of a third dose of a mumps virus–containing vaccine during outbreaks and provides the recommendation for its use among persons who are at increased risk for acquiring mumps because of an outbreak.
...Three epidemiologic studies provided evidence regarding use of a third dose of MMR vaccine for prevention of mumps, all conducted in outbreak settings among populations with high coverage with 2 doses of MMR vaccine (schools and a university)...[One] study... found that students who had received 2 doses of MMR vaccine ≥13 years before the outbreak had nine or more times the risk for contracting mumps than did those who had received the second dose within the 2 years preceding the outbreak.
Two studies evaluated the geometric mean titers of mumps virus–specific antibodies after the third dose of MMR vaccine and demonstrated a [statistically] significant increase (p<0.0001) 1 month after vaccination; however, antibody titers declined to near baseline by 1 year after vaccination...
Mumps outbreaks have occurred primarily in populations in institutional settings with close contact or in close-knit communities. The current routine recommendation for 2 doses of MMR vaccine appears to be sufficient for mumps control in the general population, but insufficient for preventing mumps outbreaks in prolonged, close-contact settings, even where coverage with 2 doses of MMR vaccine is high. Waning of vaccine-induced immunity with time after receipt of the second vaccine dose in high intensity exposure settings typical of outbreaks contributes to this higher risk for mumps disease in these settings.
A third dose of MMR vaccine has at least a short-term benefit for persons in outbreak settings.
And the third CDC document (pdf and video) to show you today was published in August 2018. This document is from the CDC's Pink Book Webinar Series. After quoting their statements I'll explain those statements in greater detail. This document states:
Post vaccination serologic testing to verify immunity is not recommended
Documented, age-appropriate vaccination supersedes the results of subsequent serologic testing
MMR vaccination for persons with 2 documented doses of measles- or mumps-containing vaccine or 1 dose of rubella-containing vaccine with a negative or equivocal measles titer is not recommended. These persons should be considered to have presumptive evidence of immunity
[Health Care Personnel] with 2 documented, appropriately spaced doses of MMR are not recommended to be serologically tested for immunity; they are
IF they are tested and results are negative or equivocal for measles, mumps, and/or rubella, NO additional MMR doses are recommended
In the video the nurse educator repeatedly emphasizes that getting your titers tested to measure antibody levels after vaccination, is not recommended. As she puts it, these vaccinated people are presumed to be immune. She explains that if a person has their antibody titers measured and if that testing determines the person has inadequate antibody levels to meet the standard believed necessary to confer immunity, then the health practitioner should, in essence, disregard that laboratory measurement and instead, continue to presume the individual is immune.
When you evaluate the statements made by the CDC in those three CDC produced documents, it's as though they are saying, "If you've received two MMR vaccines long ago, we can't offer you any protection from the illnesses, but we'll tell you you're immune to re-assure you, so you don't panic. Don't get your titers tested. Now, if you do get your titers tested and discover you have inadequate antibody levels, pretend you didn't learn that. We'll continue to presume you're immune even though your antibodies levels don't meet the standard that we established as being necessary, in the past. Back then, we relied solely on a quantifiable scientific laboratory measurement to conclude whether or not a person is immune, but today, we've determined that immunity is actually as much a mindset as it is a scientifically agreed upon number."
When you read the information provided by media and by these various pro-vaccine sources, you come to realize, as shown in these two small examples with the DTaP and MMR vaccines, that present theories, statements, projections forecasted, and current statistics gathered, all contradict past messaging, scientific measurement, and historical statistics.
If you're an adult and you haven’t received a booster shot for the illnesses you were vaccinated against in your childhood (and few of us have because that was never required of us before), then your vaccination status hasn't been contributing to herd immunity, likely for decades now.
So to conclude this article, I'd like to explain exactly what is meant, scientifically, when it is stated that"Vaccines work!" The scientific measurement for whether or not a vaccine works, is determined in its effectiveness testing. The question asked in effectiveness testing is "Does the vaccine generate an antibody response?" If the vaccine does, then the vaccine worked, if it doesn't, then it didn't work. Beyond that, nothing more can be said with equivalent scientific certainty because the appropriate testing has not been completed.
Remember what David Graham's explained in his interview (emphasis mine):
...the FDA has never assessed the benefit of any drug that it's ever approved. It works on what's called efficacy. Does the drug work or not? Does it lower your blood pressure or does it lower your blood sugar? Not: Does it prolong your life? Does it prevent you from having a heart attack? Those are benefits. All they focus on is efficacy.
For example, ask the FDA why on earth they didn't ban high dose Vioxx® after the VIGOR Study showed in early 2000 that it increased the risk of heart attack by 500 percent? High dose Vioxx® was approved for the short-term treatment of acute pain. What earthly benefit was there that exceeds a 500 percent increase in heart attack risk? Ask the FDA to produce its benefit analysis that shows that the benefits exceed the risks. It doesn't exist. The FDA has never looked at benefit. The FDA just says to the American people, "The benefits exceed the risks. Trust me. Believe me." If you held the FDA to its proof the American people would see how badly served they've been by the FDA and its culture that belittles safety in the drug companies' interest.
The government and media point at presumed vaccine benefits, end points like immunity created, illness prevented, lives saved, etc, and they imply that those benefits are actually the vaccine's measured action. They aren't. Graham states, "The FDA has never looked at benefit." Further to that, he explains the FDA also never analyzed benefits against risks. In media broadcasts made every day, it's always stated that vaccine benefits greatly outweigh any potential risk. Graham explains that these statements are made based upon assumption, not testing and scientific evidence.
Even though it's proven that vaccines work to generate an antibody response within the body, we don't know how long vaccines work for because past and present vaccine testing didn't follow participants over the long term. Instead, participants were followed for only a few weeks or months after receipt of a vaccine. It's only been in recent years that researchers have chosen to selectively evaluate antibody levels in previously vaccinated individuals, groups who were vaccinated years or decades ago. And the result of that measurement and comparison has been surprising and disappointing.
Over the last few years illness outbreaks have been regularly reported through media. And recognizing that media reports on outbreaks are likely going to continue, maybe because outbreaks are increasing, or maybe because the health authority wants to generate fear of the illness to increase vaccine uptake, I'd simply like to encourage you to listen to those reports very carefully. Pay attention to learn where each outbreak started, who started the outbreak and which group is mostly affected. If the outbreak began with a sick, unvaccinated individual and spread through a mostly unvaccinated population, media would very very clearly point that out because they like being able to blame the unvaccinated and their vaccine refusing parents. But rarely is such information presented. Instead, the reports are often vague while alluding to how dangerous the unvaccinated or under-vaccinated are. This vagueness in their reporting is clear indication that the illness started with a vaccinated individual and is spreading through a highly vaccinated community. The mumps headlines across North America are a good example of this, and a diphtheria case in Alberta, Canada shows it as well. If you look at that diphtheria reporting (this article or this video) you'll see the media side stepped commenting on the vaccination status of this child, likely because the child was vaccinated. One newspaper article explained that the child didn't have immunization records in Alberta (which does not mean they were unvaccinated - Was the child born and vaccinated in a different province or country and as a result didn't have records to provide Alberta?) The article stated that the child was in the process of getting fully immunized because of a lack records (or was it that the child was actually being re-vaccinated to satisfy that province's desire to have immunization documentation - As I said, the article is vague). In contrast, when an outbreak starts with an unvaccinated individual or spreads through a highly unvaccinated community, the media points that out very clearly, because they want to be able to point fingers and place blame. (Here, Here, Here) The current measles outbreaks occurring in the Orthodox Jewish community in New York, are a perfect example of this. (Here, Here, Here and Here)
So pay attention for that in the media reports that come your way, and also pay attention to all the statements made about how a "vaccine works." If they explain the statement "vaccines work" by saying anything like:
Then they are implying causation - that causation was proven through carefully controlled testing and measurement of that endpoint (illness prevented, immunity created, lives saved). But in fact, causation has never been established for those endpoints. The assumptions that vaccines create immunity etc, have been drawn from population studies. Population studies cannot prove causation. Population studies show correlations.
Remember, correlation does not equal causation. If correlation is worthy of spotlight attention, and is accepted as "concrete evidence" to support vaccination, then similar needs to be offered in reverse, allowing for open scientific discussion and debate of the correlations that suggest that vaccines may be causing harm. There are currently numerous correlations relied upon by both sides, correlations that oppose each other. At present, open public discussion and debate of the vaccine unfavourable correlations has not be allowed.
Nova - Immunity Thresholds Here
CDC - Vaccination Coverage in US Kindergarteners (2013-2014 School Year) Here
CDC - Past Vaccination Schedules Here
CDC - Whooping Cough Vaccine Here
CDC provides historical rate of death from whooping cough at 9000 annually Here
Research explains whooping cough death rate peaked at 9269 deaths in 1923 Here
United States Public Health Services Vital Statistics Rates in the US 1900-1940 Here
CDC Number of Annual Whooping Cough Cases Since 1922 Here
CDC - Deaths from 2012 Whooping Cough Outbreak Here
Mainstream Media Reports Whooping Cough Cases Increasing Here
Mainstream Media Reports Mumps Outbreaks Increasing Here and Here
Oxford Academy - Persistence of MMR Antibodies, A 20 Year Follow-Up Here
Oxford Academy - Is Mumps Vaccine Effective Enough Here
Headlines about Mumps intended to generate fear: Here Here Here Here Here Here Here and Here
United States Census Bureau - Breakdown of US population Here
Research - whooping cough rate has increased from 150 cases per 100,000 population in the pre-vaccine era, to 170-630 cases per 100,000 today Here
Research - 3rd Dose of MMR doesn't improve immune response for measles Here
CDC Recommendation 3rd dose of MMR for mumps Here
CDC - don't get your titers tested pdf Here and video Here
Reporting of a case of diphtheria in Alberta, Canada Here, Here and Here
Reporting of measles in Minnesota Here
Measles outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Community Here, Here and Here
CONTINUE to the next post: Safety & Efficacy - Part 6
Last updated Nov 11, 2018