Thursday, May 29, 2014

Mostly measles ...

The headline states that we are in the "post-elimination" era, but clearly we are not!

The record setting pace of measles cases in the US is a grand total of 288 (for a population of almost 300 million). No deaths. 195/288 (67%) cases were unvaccinated, 32% were vaccinated (though it is unknown how much time elapsed between their vaccination and
exposure to measles) - there is also a chart detailing where most of the exposures come from and they types of measles most common there ... it would be relevant to know which types of measles the US vaccine is most effective against.

In the Philippines they've had 32,000 cases in the last 6 months (41 deaths):
41/32,000 = .13% rate of death (I make no claims to be a statistician - these are raw numbers based on the information available in the WaPo article). Regardless, it hardly seems to be a deadly disease.

43/288 (in the US) have been hospitalized for treatment of secondary infections (presumably pneumonia for most) = 14.6% rate of hospital admission;

I wonder how many were treated with high doses of Vit A?

Also from the article:
122,000/20 million infections (combined - Europe/Asia/Africa) = .61% rate of death; Not exactly an infectious terror.

The article does note that 1/10 with measles can get an ear infection (which could possibly lead to deafness), and 1/20 pneumonia (which can kill), and there is also the risk of encephalitis or brain inflammation, though this more serious sequelae is also far more rare (1/1,000 - 3,000 cases);

From the CDC Measles FAQ:

Q: How common was measles in the United States before the vaccine?

A: Before the measles vaccination program started in 1963, about 3 to 4 million people got measles each year in the United States. Of those people, 400 to 500 died, 48,000 were hospitalized, and 1,000 developed chronic disability from measles encephalitis. 
500 deaths/3,000,000 cases of measles = .0123% risk of death (pre-vaccine)
48,000 hospitalizations/4,000,000 cases of measles = 1.2% risk of hospitalization
1,000 measles encephalitis/4,000,000 cases of measles = .025% risk of encephalitis

Risks of MMR vaccine:

MMR vaccine side-effects 
(Measles, Mumps, and Rubella)

What are the risks from MMR vaccine?

A vaccine, like any medicine, is capable of causing serious problems, such as severe allergic reactions.
The risk of MMR vaccine causing serious harm, or death, is extremely small.
Getting MMR vaccine is much safer than getting measles, mumps or rubella.
Most people who get MMR vaccine do not have any serious problems with it.
Mild Problems
  • Fever (up to 1 person out of 6)
  • Mild rash (about 1 person out of 20)
  • Swelling of glands in the cheeks or neck (about 1 person out of 75)
If these problems occur, it is usually within 7-12 days after the shot. They occur less often after the second dose.
Moderate Problems
  • Seizure (jerking or staring) caused by fever (about 1 out of 3,000 doses)
  • Temporary pain and stiffness in the joints, mostly in teenage or adult women (up to 1 out of 4)
  • Temporary low platelet count, which can cause a bleeding disorder (about 1 out of 30,000 doses)
Severe Problems (Very Rare)
  • Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses)
  • Several other severe problems have been reported after a child gets MMR vaccine, including:
    • Deafness
    • Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
    • Permanent brain damage
    These are so rare that it is hard to tell whether they are caused by the vaccine.
This information was taken directly from the MMR VIS
(This information taken from MMR VIS dated 4/20/12. If the actual VIS is more recent than this date, the information on this page needs to be updated.)

Spontaneous infection and recovery from measles provides such robust immunity that those born earlier than 1957 are presumed to be immune, while those who are vaccinated "can lose their immunity over time"; This is a tacit admission of the superior efficacy of spontaneous infection - perhaps because the infection is acquired through normal means - being first presented to the body, and the immune system, through the mucous membranes, rather than being directly injected into the blood stream through the skin (via the capillary network).

Measles, especially severe cases that result in secondary infection and/or complications may be a marker for nutritional compromise, as high doses of Vit A are the recommended treatment. Why is this acknowledged as the preferred treatment for this infection, but the use of nutritional supplements as a risk reduction tool (ie: Vit D3) is scorned in favor of vaccination?
If short-term high doses of Vit A are efficacious for this infection, could this also be true of other vitamins for other infections?

Life is risky ... we should all decide what risks we are willing to live with.
Some prefer the risk of spontaneous infection.
Others prefer the risk of vaccination (ie: not efficacious, and/or independent risk of
vaccines as listed above);

Regardless, we should all choose which risks to accept - so vaccination should be
accepted or declined freely.

Update May 30, 2014:

The authors of the above report acknowledge that underreporting is a likely and limits the accuracy of the report - but also implies that the risks discussed may be overstated due to

Here is a link with lots of technical and detailed information regarding the genetics of
measles vaccine strains:

MMR Package Insert:

Monday, May 19, 2014

We don't know what we don't know ...

The vaccine issue is much bigger than children and vaccines - adults are the next "target" so to speak -- in other words, the focus is on compliance with an ever growing schedule of vaccines for adults - many of which are currently only "recommended" which is a hairsbreadth away from being required (except of course for flu vaccine for anyone doing anything in anyway with/for healthcare). 

>200 vaccines are currently in development. 

There is reason/plausibility to wonder how much of a variable are vaccine adverse effects in contributing toward a variety of chronic health issues in children (regardless of the system involved - ie: neuro/autism, endocrine/diabetes, immune/allergies, etc ... ) BUT - if vaccines and/or their adjuvants/excipients are contributing to these types of health issues in children might they also be a variable in chronic health issues in adults? It may not be as apparent in adults as we are not as "plastic" as children - but this also means recovery/repair takes longer if it happens at all. 

We don't know what we don't know - and I think there is a GREAT deal we don't know about vaccines and the consequences of using them. 

While vaccines likely do play a role in suppressing some infectious diseases, the fact that outbreaks are occurring among highly vaccinated populations demonstrates that the risk reduction is limited at best. The strategy of continuous re-vaccination ("booster" shots) may ultimately end up backfiring much like the over-use of antibiotics has led to resistant bacteria. For that matter, have we considered that there might be a synergistic effect - many who have whooping cough (either B. pertussis or B. parapertussis) are also treated with antibiotics - and many of them are/were vaccinated prior to coming down with the illness. 

I'd rather not have to deal with bacteria/viruses that are both vaccine and antibiotic resistant!! We may be better off dealing with the problem of infections in childhood that yield a more substantial/robust protective immunity rather than suppressing (deferring?) infections through vaccination. Part of the problem with suppressing/deferring/delaying contraction of these illnesses is that they are more severe when/if they occur later in life. 
Especially because there seems to be an alarming lack of curiosity regarding the possibility that vaccination may be a variable in a variety of chronic health problems. 

This is why vaccination, like any other medical procedure/intervention, should be fully informed, and freely chosen by those involved - taken without any coercion or manipulation. 

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Marketplace of ideas - freedom works

Vaccines evoke strong opinions, pro and con. There are some in the pro-vaccine camp who are proposing that those who don't agree with them not be allowed to express their views - for the sake of protecting the public, of course. At best this is condescending, at worst just plain dangerous because of the precedent that is set - don't agree with an opinion, silence the opposition. Hmmm ... our current administration has already set this precedent in using the IRS as a political tool against certain groups, so unfortunately, and example has already been set. 

It's condescending as it is a paternalistic attitude that assumes people cannot think for themselves and examine evidence and draw their own conclusions, make up their own minds about a matter (whether it is about vaccines or anything else). 

It's dangerous because if this is permitted regarding vaccines (silencing those who question the conventional wisdom of vaccination), then what other opinions or thoughts might be targeted next, simply because they do not conform to prevailing patterns crafted by the thought police? 

We are designed to live in freedom, and this is why more humans have flourished under free market capitalism than any other economic model. It expresses the collective wisdom of individual economic choices (bottom up), rather than the imposition of the will of a few from the top (a model that has failed spectacularly -- a model in which millions wait in lines for bread whereas in capitalism, bread waits for millions); 

Even as things are the market for vaccines is not free ... those who manufacture and deliver the product are shielded from liability, while the product in question is required by law or fiat before individuals can obtain employment (flu shots for healthcare workers) or schooling (children); If the market for vaccines were free(er), there would be no mandates, nor any liability firewall. If the product in question is so safe and effective as its supporters insist that it is, such things (mandates/liability limits) would not be needed as there would be a groundswell of demand for the product. 

Those who create the mandates have conflicts of interest in doing so ... 

Science is not settled - about vaccines and many other things. The marketplace of ideas benefits from the free exchange of ideas, so silencing anyone, about any issue, is foolish and unspeakably arrogant. 

What are those who are suggesting this so afraid of? If they are so confident in the concept of vaccination, why would it matter if those who question vaccination are wrong? 

We trust women to make life and death decisions regarding their children's lives (ie: they can determine whether or not to have an abortion) because "we trust them" and/or "they have the right" ... but we can't trust mommies to determine whether or not their child gets a vaccine - another life and death decision?! Parents/people can't have the right to determine whether or not they get a vaccine? 

Yet another eerily similar parallel between vaccines and abortion: pro-aborts want to limit the amount of information women get (lest they change their mind and not have the abortion ... and the abortionist not get the filthy lucre), while those who are pro-life/oppose abortion want women to have as much accurate information as possible prior to making their decision so they can make a fully informed decision! 

So the pro-vaccine camp wants to limit people's ability to obtain information (well, any information that might question vaccination), while those who do have questions want people to get as much information as possible prior to making the decision to vaccinate. 

Truth has no fear of the lie - it is quite telling that those who question vaccination do not shirk from the debate, nor are they (to the knowledge of this blogger at the time of this post) insinuating that those who are pro-vaccine be silenced. 

Our Creator designed us with free will, and even He respects our freedom to chose even when it causes us, and Him, great grief. He detailed reasonable boundaries in His word, the Bible, to help us not take freedom to far (like slaughtering innocent unborn human life for the sake of personal autonomy) -- but if He respects our freedom to choose, shouldn't we also respect one another's? 

Those who want vaccines should get them. 
Those who do not want vaccines should not be forced or manipulated to do so. 

Everyone should be free to speak their mind, and fellow citizens should be able to listen, unfettered by censorship.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Bexsero, again ...

In the last year there have been a handful of cases of Meningitis B at several college campuses (previously discussed on this blog, see links below);

The Today Show aired a segment this morning about a mom who is taking a group of young adults to Canada to be vaccinated with Bexsero - motivated by the death of her daughter from MenB in January of this year. (;

My heart breaks for her - I can only imagine her pain. It's tragic that her daughter died - MenB is indeed a serious infection.

Bexsero is approved in the EU ( and now is also approved in the UK (as of March 2014 - though it is not yet available - the hold up being negotiations on price. Bexsero is not yet approved by the FDA in the US (though it was given a provisional approval for use on Princeton and UCSB campuses in response to the cluster of cases of MenB); Novartis plans to submit an application for formal approval by the FDA

While MenB is a serious infection and can cause death and/or serious sequelae it is also not very common - according to the CDC there are less 200 cases/year of MenB out of a total of 500 cases of all types of meningitis (2012 data -;

The efficacy of Bexsero is unknown - it is simply assumed to work because antibodies are
generated in response to receipt of the vaccine:

The efficacy of Bexsero has not been evaluated through clinical trials. Vaccine efficacy has been inferred by demonstrating the induction of serum bactericidal antibody responses to each of the vaccine antigens (see section Immunogenicity).
From:  (page 7);

Aluminum is used as an adjuvant to help stimulate the immune response - .5mg/dose (see page 19 of the above link), 2 doses are recommended.

Some believe strongly in the necessity of vaccination, and believe the benefits outweigh the risks - they should be vaccinated if they so choose.

No one should be required to be vaccinated as we no so little about the long-term consequences of repeated exposure to these products.

We know that use of antibiotics changes the microbiome - and not always for the better, is it possible that use of vaccines is also a factor in this?

We think we can achieve "herd" immunity via vaccination ... perhaps we just need to take better care of one another - not "herd" the "herd" into cramped, high-density living quarters - this is a known risk factor for virtually any disease, let alone MenB. We've barely begun to recognize that CAFO produce unhealthy food/meat ... besides animals deserve better - that is not stewardship, it's abuse - no creature deserves to be treated in that manner, even if it's destiny is death for the sake of feeding humans! If this is true of a lower order of creation, it is all the more true of the pinnacle of creation - humans, made in the Imagio Deo!




Monday, May 12, 2014

Abortion and vaccines (Part 4)

Why does "My body, my choice" apply only to abortion?

Vaccine proponents imply all people have an obligation to be vaccinated for the sake of
others. In other words, for the sake of others, you do not have a choice - and this is increasingly
enforced by law, either directly or indirectly.

Abortion is framed as being about personal autonomy for women, and about control of their bodies - so why is vaccination different? Why are we denied our personal autonomy in determining whether we will, or won't receive a vaccine (male or female). Why are our bodies violated with an invasive procedure when it is not wanted?

If we're obligated to receive a vaccine for others, where will the intrusion into personal decisions end? What other diktats will be issued, and required, "for the sake of the herd"?

Why is the baby only part of the "other" (for whom there is an obligation) when a woman
carries to term?
   Have an abortion - child is torn limb from limb ... pro-aborts call you a heroine.
   Carry to term - your a pariah if you don't get a flu shot, or you could be forced
                             to have a c-section (for the sake of the baby, of course).

Cognitive dissonance, all too present in both issues: abortion and vaccines.

We don't have the right to kill other people - and that is what abortion does (indeed
that is its purpose).
Our children should not pay with their lives because biology is what it is.
Once a child is conceived, "my body, my choice" no longer applies.
"My body, my choice" applies before a person (male or female) makes the
decision, the choice, to have sex. Yes, I know women are raped and do not
have a choice then ... however rape is not about sex, it is about power and
control (oh, I see a similarity there with vaccines and choice, among other
issues!) - regardless, in the unlikely event a child is conceived as a result of
rape, the child should not pay for their father's crime by being killed! Also,
most women who are pregnant as a result of rape and abort report the
abortion as being as traumatizing as the rape itself, whereas women who
are pregnant as a result of rape and choose to have the child report being
glad they did.

And once again, if you have an abortion history and are troubled by it and want
help, it's available - you can start at The Elliott Institute, among others. Feel free
to contact this blogger at aschnedl(at) - I'll be happy to provide you
with resources.

Illness happens with or without vaccines, and vaccines are available for those who want
them and believe the risk reduction is worth the trade off in possible harm.

"My body, my choice" absolutely should apply to vaccines.

Resources for post-abortive women:

Saturday, May 10, 2014



Some of the ingredients in vaccines are common to other products or are found in other substances/foods/medicines that we use, some daily.

What's odd is that there is concern expressed about the danger these ingredients cause when in these other products, but not the risk caused by these same ingredients when used in vaccines.

For example, most seafood is contaminated with mercury. While it is good to be aware of the risk of mercury in fish, and to consider modifying how much fish you eat, or what fish you eat in order to minimize or manage this risk, why is there no concern about the mercury in vaccines – or why did it require tremendous public outcry before it was addressed? You may hear that there is no more mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines – this simply is not true. There is mercury/thimerosal in most flu vaccines, and in others as well – it is important to educate yourself prior to deciding if you want a vaccine for yourself or your child – read the vaccine package inserts, not simply the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS), click on the “Vaccine Links” page/tab of this blog for other websites providing information about vaccines. Consider both sides of the issue and decide what is best for your health.

Formaldehyde is also an ingredient in many vaccines – used to “kill” or “deactivate” the antigen/virus/bacteria … according to the CDC it is present only in “trace” amounts. We don't know how many times we can be exposed to “trace” amounts of a carcinogen before the repeated exposure can/will be part of the process that triggers the development of an actual cancer. This is a legitimate concern because vaccines at best provide temporary risk reduction (they do not protect – different concept, and not synonymous), so to maintain the risk reduction one needs to be vaccinated multiple times throughout a lifetime – multiply that with multiple vaccines and/or multiple doses and “trace” amounts may not be so trace! Should we be worried about formaldehyde as a chemical in second-hand smoke (whether of regular cigarettes or e-cigarettes), but not concerned about exposure to formaldehyde from/in vaccines?

Other ingredients that may be of concern (and this is a partial list):

Neomycin (Polio – IPV Ipol, Rabies - RabAvert)
Streptomycin (Polio – IPV Ipol)

Neomycin and Streptomycin are both antibiotics – they may be in the vaccine as a way to reduce risk of bacterial contamination (one of the reasons for thimerosal). One can only wonder if exposure via vaccines might predispose someone to an allergic reaction if later exposed to these antibiotics at a later time (for the purpose of treating an infection). 

As always – if you think the benefit of a vaccine is greater than the risk, get vaccinated. And if you think the risk is more than the benefit, decline.

The decision should always be yours, and yours alone.