Your focus on measles mortality's decline before vaccination overlooks a critical point: though fewer died, nearly every American child still contracted measles. Pre-vaccine America saw 3-4 million cases annually with serious, directly attributable complications:
150,000-200,000 children developed pneumonia yearly
3,000-4,000 suffered encephalitis, often causing permanent brain damage
600,000-800,000 required hospitalization - many suffering from secondary infections there
300-400 later developed SSPE, a fatal degenerative brain condition
Measles-induced "immune amnesia" left survivors vulnerable to other infections for 2-3 years
Vaccination didn't just reduce already-declining deaths—it prevented millions from experiencing measles altogether.
Regarding your VAERS chart claiming "40,372 vaccine deaths": As a physician, you understand that correlation isn't causation. VAERS collects temporally associated events without establishing causality. From 2006-2019, over 3.6 billion vaccine doses were administered in the US. Though VAERS received 2,290 death reports during this period, thorough CDC investigations found no causal relationship between these deaths and vaccines.
"After vaccination" is not equivalent to "because of vaccination"—a distinction that's fundamental to scientific literacy and medical practice.
Shouldn't scientific inquiry include all relevant data? I think Feynman would agree...
I am surprised it took you a few hours for your response, as you probably had it ready to go....
You bring up good points as well.
Who has been allowed to collect the data and do more research on the theory of increased Autoimmune Disease since the advent of Public Health becoming more powerful in setting treatment guidelines? This also needs to be discussed and might just equal or surpass the secondary complications that may come from Measles. Also as healthcare has developed a better understanding of Measles and other infectious illness, perhaps we have better supportive care to do a better job of preventing those complications you listed. Perhaps there are more preventive methods than an almost sole focus on a vaccine we should utilize more.
But the point we should agree on is that the science is never settled and there should be open discussions and debate on all topics WITHOUT fear of retribution for going against the standard of care that is today's healthcare world.
Innovation and improvement occur with open dialogue, like we have here.
Then people can decide based on their beliefs, again WITHOUT fear of retribution, reprisal etc.
Dr. H, I appreciate your thoughtful response. We certainly agree that open scientific dialogue is essential and that medical understanding evolves. Good science requires constant questioning within a framework of evidence.
Regarding autoimmune research - this has actually been extensively studied by independent researchers worldwide. Large population studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and others have specifically investigated potential links between vaccines and autoimmune conditions. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vsd/index.html), academically led cohort studies, and international collaborations have published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on this specific question. Far from being prohibited, this research has been actively funded across multiple countries with diverse healthcare systems (e.g. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4/full).
The comparative risk question is indeed important. When we examine the evidence, we find that confirmed adverse events from vaccines occur at rates of approximately 1-2 serious events per million doses, compared to the 1-in-5 hospitalization rate and 1-in-1,000 encephalitis rate from wild measles infection. Even with modern supportive care, these complications remain significantly higher than vaccine risks by several orders of magnitude.
I do agree that multiple preventive approaches have value. Nutrition, vitamin A supplementation, and early supportive care all help reduce measles severity. However, these approaches complement rather than replace vaccination, as they don't prevent initial infection or transmission.
I wonder - what specific additional research questions do you believe deserve more attention? Perhaps we could discuss how such studies might be designed to provide meaningful answers 😉
Have you seen or investigated the possibility that having measles in the past lessens the likelihood of having heart issues or getting certain cancers?
When I was growing up me and my four brothers had measles, chicken poxes, mumps and some other stuff. We survived. Vaccinations now seem to have side effects that are more harmful than being sick for a couple of weeks.
Dr. H.
I am sure you now expect my response :)
Your focus on measles mortality's decline before vaccination overlooks a critical point: though fewer died, nearly every American child still contracted measles. Pre-vaccine America saw 3-4 million cases annually with serious, directly attributable complications:
150,000-200,000 children developed pneumonia yearly
3,000-4,000 suffered encephalitis, often causing permanent brain damage
600,000-800,000 required hospitalization - many suffering from secondary infections there
300-400 later developed SSPE, a fatal degenerative brain condition
Measles-induced "immune amnesia" left survivors vulnerable to other infections for 2-3 years
Vaccination didn't just reduce already-declining deaths—it prevented millions from experiencing measles altogether.
Regarding your VAERS chart claiming "40,372 vaccine deaths": As a physician, you understand that correlation isn't causation. VAERS collects temporally associated events without establishing causality. From 2006-2019, over 3.6 billion vaccine doses were administered in the US. Though VAERS received 2,290 death reports during this period, thorough CDC investigations found no causal relationship between these deaths and vaccines.
"After vaccination" is not equivalent to "because of vaccination"—a distinction that's fundamental to scientific literacy and medical practice.
Shouldn't scientific inquiry include all relevant data? I think Feynman would agree...
Yes Andy.
I am surprised it took you a few hours for your response, as you probably had it ready to go....
You bring up good points as well.
Who has been allowed to collect the data and do more research on the theory of increased Autoimmune Disease since the advent of Public Health becoming more powerful in setting treatment guidelines? This also needs to be discussed and might just equal or surpass the secondary complications that may come from Measles. Also as healthcare has developed a better understanding of Measles and other infectious illness, perhaps we have better supportive care to do a better job of preventing those complications you listed. Perhaps there are more preventive methods than an almost sole focus on a vaccine we should utilize more.
But the point we should agree on is that the science is never settled and there should be open discussions and debate on all topics WITHOUT fear of retribution for going against the standard of care that is today's healthcare world.
Innovation and improvement occur with open dialogue, like we have here.
Then people can decide based on their beliefs, again WITHOUT fear of retribution, reprisal etc.
Dr. H, I appreciate your thoughtful response. We certainly agree that open scientific dialogue is essential and that medical understanding evolves. Good science requires constant questioning within a framework of evidence.
Regarding autoimmune research - this has actually been extensively studied by independent researchers worldwide. Large population studies from Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and others have specifically investigated potential links between vaccines and autoimmune conditions. The Vaccine Safety Datalink (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vsd/index.html), academically led cohort studies, and international collaborations have published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers on this specific question. Far from being prohibited, this research has been actively funded across multiple countries with diverse healthcare systems (e.g. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4/full).
The comparative risk question is indeed important. When we examine the evidence, we find that confirmed adverse events from vaccines occur at rates of approximately 1-2 serious events per million doses, compared to the 1-in-5 hospitalization rate and 1-in-1,000 encephalitis rate from wild measles infection. Even with modern supportive care, these complications remain significantly higher than vaccine risks by several orders of magnitude.
I do agree that multiple preventive approaches have value. Nutrition, vitamin A supplementation, and early supportive care all help reduce measles severity. However, these approaches complement rather than replace vaccination, as they don't prevent initial infection or transmission.
I wonder - what specific additional research questions do you believe deserve more attention? Perhaps we could discuss how such studies might be designed to provide meaningful answers 😉
Have you seen or investigated the possibility that having measles in the past lessens the likelihood of having heart issues or getting certain cancers?
When I was growing up me and my four brothers had measles, chicken poxes, mumps and some other stuff. We survived. Vaccinations now seem to have side effects that are more harmful than being sick for a couple of weeks.