a reply to: Artesia
I call BS on the original post.
Once you get past the sgtreport and natural blaze and healthnutnews and read the original paper - for some reason, none of those sites linked to it
(funny dat!) - you'll see some stuff they forgot to mention.
Like "During measles outbreaks, it is important to be able to rapidly distinguish between measles cases and vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary
outbreak response measures such as case isolation and contact investigations."
And "Since approximately 5% of recipients of measles virus-containing vaccine experience rash and fever which may be indistinguishable from measles
(9), it is very important to identify vaccine reactions to avoid unnecessary isolation of the patient, as well as the need for contact tracing and
other labor-intensive public health interventions."
And "Of the 194 measles virus sequences obtained in the United States in 2015, 73 were identified as vaccine sequences (R. J. McNall, unpublished
data). In contrast, only 11 of 542 cases genotyped in the National Reference Center for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella in Germany were associated with
the vaccine virus."
If you want to read the paper itself, it's here.
If you it's all a bit confusing, it means that a lot of the measles "cases" were not measles but an adverse reaction with similar symptoms. Before
you start pulling that apart, consider what the word "symptoms" mean. To the doctors, it means these people don't need to be isolated because they
are not infectious. It also means that some vaccines appear to have a greater rate of adverse reaction, although it's hardly a meaningful sample. It
also means you're very unlikely to die or develop long term chronic conditions (like I did).
Of course, if you're emotionally invested in an oppositional view that disregards primary sources or any kind of critical thought, don't mind me or
the original paper.
edit on 11-5-2019 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: (no reason given)