Who has the truth in the debate on childhood vaccines? You be the judge!

Measles, Part 1: View graphs that tell the real story, plus highly enlightening January 2024 email exchange with Dr. Paul Offit, in this article!

BS”D

As the government-media-pharma triad has stepped up their aggressive measles vaccine propaganda, it is extra important for the public to be aware of some basic measles and measles vaccine facts.

Obviously, we all want our children to be healthy, so the question we have to ask is, what affords them a better shot at good health and long life: taking the measles vaccine, or not taking it?

The first thing we would have to clarify would be how much of a risk measles poses, and the second would be, what kind of risks the vaccine poses. Of course, we have been conditioned for the past 60 years (the measles shot was introduced in 1963) to think that measles is very risky, and the vaccine is very safe. This article, and the next installment, will G-d willing, attempt to clarify the actual risks of each.

If you are older than 60, you likely remember measles as a childhood rite of passage, something everyone went through at one point or another - not fun, but not deadly. Similar to chicken pox - that is, if you’re over 30 and you recall getting chicken pox as something normal.

I am not old enough to have experienced measles as a fact of life, but I know that there used to be a television comedy show in which “the kids getting measles” was something normal that happened. Not something horrible and scary. The show obviously reflected the reality 50-60 years ago.

Why has measles been “catastrophized?” Does it have anything to do with Pharma having a vaccine to promote?

The propaganda is so strong that anyone who is too young to remember measles as normal, and who hasn’t researched it, couldn’t be faulted for guessing that measles has a high fatality rate. In fact, my local medical/dental clinic, there is a sign on the wall behind the check-in counter with various “codes” for staff to call out in case of grave emergencies, G-d forbid. For example, (I don’t remember which color is matched with which emergency), “Code Red” for cardiac arrest, “Code Purple” for child abduction, “Code Green” for an active shooter, and so on for bomb threats, etc. There is also a code to call for “Measles.”

Yes. THAT is how hard they are promoting the terror around measles.

Does this fear hyped around measles match the facts in any way at all?

Yes, children used to often die of measles - like, 100 years ago, before proper nutrition was widespread. But that stopped, many decades ago. Before the measles vaccine came out, lots of kids were getting measles, but they weren’t dying anymore - almost never.

Parents need to know the facts. Measles is currently not a deadly disease.

Here I’ve taken pictures of pages from Dr. Suzanne Humphries’ book, Dissolving Illusions, so you can see where the fear comes from, and the startling contrast between 1906 and 1960. We aren’t in 1906 anymore, thank G-d!

Please buy this wonderful book!!!! You’ll learn the truth about many different diseases and vaccines.

On Amazon: https://a.co/d/3qMBWdd

The scary days in 1906:

This next part is very important to read closely. Notice the drastic drop in measles fatality, to almost zero, before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.

Please also see the description on page 338 of how in the early 1960’s, in anticipation of the measles vaccine rollout, the powers-that-be began to spread an unwarranted fear of measles.

Reporting on measles statistics nowadays fails to distinguish between countries with good nutrition and those with poor nutrition, leading all parents to believe that measles is something to be feared:

Have a look for yourself at the data that Dr. Suzanne Humphries presents in her book, and see whether it appears that the measles vaccine did anything for measles mortality:

Here’s data from England. Can you see any difference in measles deaths before and after the vaccine? I cannot.

This graph shows the drastically declining fatality rates from measles and whooping cough as well, in the United States, well before either vaccine was introduced.

And just to reinforce the point, this is Massachusetts measles mortality data from 1861 to 1970. The vaccine did nothing for measles deaths. They had already basically stopped happening.

With the above information in mind, please see this enlightening email exchange that Raphael Szendro, a Rabbi I am in contact with in Maryland, had this January with Dr. Paul Offit. I am republishing it with Rabbi Szendro’s permission and encouragement. Please notice how Dr. Offit simply stopped answering Rabbi Szendro’s emails when Rabbi Szendro hit on the truth.

Email Conversation with Dr. Paul Offit (1/26/24-2/12/24)

RS: 1/26/24, 3:15pm

Hi,

I was at the event at Shaarei Zion in Baltimore where you answered several questions on vaccines. It was Dec of 2018. I recorded the entire thing on my phone, and I transcribed one question and one answer. There are numerous things I have been meaning to ask you, but this one question has been bothering me in particular over the last few years. I wanted to know if you could please elaborate on your response to Rabbi Hauer:

Rabbi Hauer: “As you alluded in the history, there have been many advances in terms of public health that have happened over the past hundred years, like drinking water and things like that. People have made a claim to show, for example, something like the measles, which is the epidemic which sort of has brought us together, the resurgence of that, that even before the measles vaccine was introduced, mortality rates from measles were way, way down in this country. Can you shed some light on that? With a disease like the measles, how much of the safety that we have is attributable to the vaccine, and how much to the other factor?”

Dr. Offit: “Well it’s true, I mean if you look at it in terms of some diseases, as sanitation improves you start to see a lessening of that disease, but when the vaccine comes in you see a dramatic drop will occur, it’s a clear definitive drop associated with the vaccination. So, if you use measles as an example, um, before there was a measles vaccine in this country which was in 1963, every year we would see 3.5 to 4 million cases of measles, we would see 48 thousand children were roughly hospitalized with measles, and we would see between 500 and 1,000 killed people. Measles makes you sick. . .”

I believe you are referring to the 408 measles deaths in 1962 (252 with pneumonia, and 156 without mention of pneumonia), see attached. In the early 1900's, according to CDC, there were around 6,000 annual deaths from measles. 6,000 to 408 is a significant drop. Was Rabbi Hauer correct in his general assessment? Can you please elaborate on what you meant when you said "when the vaccine comes in, you see a dramatic drop"? Were you referring to the incident rate of measles when you said that? It's a little confusing because Rabbi Hauer was specifically asking about the mortality rate in the US.

Thanks

Vital Statistics US 1962 - measles.pdf

Dr. Offit: 1/26/24, 3:55pm

Maybe this video can help give you some of the answers you're looking for.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/vaccines/108434

Why Measles Keeps Popping Up in Pockets of the U.S.

Paul Offit, MD, on the history of the MMR vaccine and the lasting legacy of COVID

www.medpagetoday.com

RS: 1/29/24, 12:47pm

Thank you for the video. There's a lot of good information there. You began discussing the history starting in 1963 when the vaccine was invented and you said there were "500 deaths" each year. I think you meant 408, as I showed you on the vital statistics. But my main question goes back to 1912 where CDC writes on their website: "an average of 6,000 measles-related deaths were reported each year." A reduction from 6,000 to 408 is much greater than 408 to zero. Do you agree with Rabbi Hauer's assessment, that "even before the measles vaccine was introduced, mortality rates from measles were way, way down in this country"? You began your response with "Well it's true...". I can interpret that as a confirmation that you agree, but I just wanted to make sure. I don't want to make any assumptions.

Thank you

Dr. Offit: 1/29/24, 12:50pm

advances in hygiene and sanitation decrease the incident of many diseases. Plus, advances in medicine and science made for better treatments.

RS: 1/29/24, 1:16pm

It looks like we're in agreement. I just want to make sure it's clear:

The incident rate, or infection rate, was affected primarily by the vaccine, from 1963 to present. But the mortality rate decreased mostly before we had a vaccine.

Correct?

RS: 2/2/24, 6:45am

Good morning,

It sounds like we're on the same page regarding the mortality rates. I know you're busy, but I have two more questions for you:

1. In a safety and efficacy study for the Rotavirus vaccine, the New England Journal of Medicine reported in 2006 that 31,673 infants received the HRV vaccine, and 31,552 infants received a placebo. "The placebo had the same constituents as the active vaccine but without the vaccine virus." Based on my research, and correct me if I'm wrong, none of the childhood vaccines were tested against an inert placebo. Many studies did not use any placebo at all. And those which did, used another vaccine as the placebo, which itself was never tested against a placebo. The common excuse given for not using the "gold standard" of safety testing is that it would be unethical to deprive the control group of standard care. As a parent of young children who has to decide what makes the most sense for the health and safety of my family, I can look at this in two ways: A. It's a perfectly valid excuse. Scientists are trying their very best to rigorously test vaccines for safety. But their hands are tied in this instance because of ethical issues. B. It's a totally bogus excuse. The industry is doing everything in their power to avoid any safety testing that might bring to light any possible dangers of their very lucrative product. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I'm just pointing out the reality. There are doctors on both sides of the argument. How are parents supposed to know which side is correct? Personally, when I look at the example of the Rotavirus vaccine, I see an indication that the correct answer is B. There is no therapeutic benefit in giving 32,000 infants all of the vaccine ingredients with the virus removed. You can't say it is unethical to deprive them of those ingredients. Why not use an inert placebo as they do with every other drug on the market?

I never went to medical school. But the logical conclusion seems to be that the industry has little to no interest in conducting any type of serious safety studies when it comes to vaccines. How would you respond to that argument, reassuring parents that vaccines are safe?

2. When it comes to post-market analysis, millions of parents like myself would like to know why not a single study has ever been done comparing the health outcome of vaccinated vs unvaccinated children. See attached letter from Roger Andoh from CDC/ATSDR dated 7/29/20. There are a handful of studies comparing children who received 6 vaccines, to another group of children who received 6 vaccines plus MMR. The "plus MMR" group shows a slight increase in autism, but it is not statistically significant. The obvious problem is that you can design the exact same study to prove smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Take a group of people who smoke 6 packs per week of 6 different brands of cigarettes, and compare their health to a group that smokes 6 packs per week plus a pack of Marlboro. It does not prove Marlboro is safe, and certainly doesn't prove other brands are safe. Similarly, your MMR studies prove very little regarding MMR, and they prove nothing regarding other vaccines. Instead, why don't we do the obvious thing and design a study comparing fully vaccinated vs fully unvaccinated? The common response to that question is that it's just too difficult, like Stanley Plotkin tried to tell Aaron Siri in a deposition in 2018. Here is a 30 minute segment of that deposition where they discuss this question.

You will see in this video that Dr. Plotkin makes several attempts to give reasons why it is too difficult. But in the end, Dr. Plotkin admits to Aaron that none of the reasons he came up with adequately justify his position of the study being too "difficult". It's surprising that a lawyer won a debate with the biggest vaccine expert in the world. But I think the most shocking part of this interview is something many people may have missed. Dr. Plotkin mentioned multiple times, in trying to justify why he can't come up with a valid explanation why the study is too "difficult", that the concept of creating such a study has never crossed his mind and he never had a chance to really think about it. The biggest vaccine expert, who invented many of the vaccines on the market and advises every vaccine manufacturer in the world, never took the time to check if the vaccine schedule is safe. He is admitting that the idea literally never even crossed his mind. Unbelievable.

Again, I'm no expert. But just using a little common sense, the logical conclusion is that the industry is purposely hiding something. Can you please explain why my logic is incorrect? How would you respond to millions of parents like myself to explain why it's too difficult to conduct a vaccinated vs unvaccinated study? Or, would you agree with Aaron that it's not that difficult, and the study should have been done a long time ago?

Thank you

FOIA - CDC - vaccinated vs unvaccinated.pdf

RS: 2/7/24, 11:05am

Good morning,

I would greatly appreciate answers to the above questions. These are real concerns that I have.

Thank you

RS: 2/12/24, 8:00am

Good morning.

In conclusion, one of the biggest vaccine experts in the world is unable or unwilling to answer parents' questions and concerns about vaccine safety. You responded to my first email within 40 minutes, and you responded to the 2nd email in only 3 minutes, but it's been 10 days since I sent you my additional two questions. If I had to make an educated guess, I would say you stopped answering me because you agree vaccines have not been sufficiently tested for safety. That is the logical conclusion any responsible parent would make after reading this exchange.

You spent the majority of a day traveling back and forth from Philadelphia to Baltimore, spending several hours answering numerous questions from Rabbi Hauer back on 12/26/2018, but you can't take just a few moments to resolve, or at least address legitimate concerns, which will be seen by millions of parents on social media. You complained in your Medpage Today video that since Covid, 35% of parents think there should be no vaccine mandates for school. You suggested it was bec the Covid vaccine was mandated "in what many considered to be a Draconian fashion", which was a mistake bec adults don't like being told what to do. As a push-back, many parents stopped vaccinating their children. I disagree. Seatbelts are mandated in most states. You don't see a decline in drivers wearing seatbelts in defiance of the mandate. The difference is that seatbelts make sense. They save lives. And notably, you don't have thousands of experts saying seatbelts kill people. But you do have thousands of experts saying the Covid vaccine kills people, and you also have thousands of experts saying childhood vaccines were never tested for safety and very likely are the primary cause of autism, SIDS, and dozens of other major health catastrophes. I believe the main reason more people are stopping to vaccinate is because every time we present legitimate concerns to a doctor, like yourself, at best we get an unclear, irrelevant response. But in most cases we get no response at all. Not only is it not reassuring, it is a strong indication we are correct.

As a bonus, let's go back to the response you gave Rabbi Hauer regarding mortality rates. I quoted part of your response, but ended early bec it got more off topic as you went on. But I will quote the rest of your response now, so readers can see what I mean, that you tend to give unclear, misleading answers. I ended the quote from: "Measles makes you sick..."

You then said: "In Baltimore, there was a fair amount of measles when I was a medical student. If you look, interestingly, at the chest x-rays of children who have measles, half of them have abnormal chest x-rays. Not all of them have clinical pneumonia, but half of them have evidence of at least {inaudible} pneumonia." NOTE: This is consistent with what I quoted from Vital Statistics in my first email. You continued: "It's a bad disease. When people in our hospital are worried that there's a child with a fever and a rash in the emergency department, could it be measles, they call old people like me down to the emergency department to see whether or not I can tell if it's measles. I can tell if it's measles in 30 seconds, bec you're really sick with measles, I mean you're miserable with measles. You're intolerant to light. You're...you're...you're...you're sick. And {inaudible}. What's interesting to me is when Jenny McCarthy was on Oprah, and Jenny McCarthy is my personal healthcare guru {Laughter}. When she says, I'll take the freekin' measles every time. Meaning, as if there's a choice between getting that vaccine, or not getting it and having to not suffer autism, which obviously isn't a choice. What that says actually, it's not just that we largely eliminated measles, we eliminated measles from the United States by the year 2000, that vaccine eliminated that disease but it's come back largely bec a critical number of parents, as you said in your introduction, chose not to vaccinate their children. I think not only have we largely eliminated measles, we eliminated the memory of measles. People don't remember how sick that made you. When I was a medical student in Maryland, and we would see a lot of measles come into the hospital, those kids were sick. This is not something to fool around with. I mean, you know people will say well, I had the measles and I'm fine, that's because you lived, and you know as they say, the story is always told by the survivors. I mean, the people who died from measles aren't here to tell their stories. So therefore, we have to tell their stories."

Had you been honest with Rabbi Hauer, instead of giving the enormously long rant about Jenny McCarthy, the correct and straightforward answer would have been: Yes, that is correct. Before the measles vaccine was introduced in the US, mortality rates had already dropped to extremely low numbers, and very possibly would have continued to drop even lower, even had the vaccine never been invented.

Even when I asked you to clarify your answer, you couldn't bring yourself to give me a straightforward response. You seem to be terrified of giving people an accurate perception of reality. You think we're not capable of handling the truth, and you think people will stop vaccinating when they realize measles is not a deadly disease. Instead of giving an honest answer about the mortality rate, you give an entire Megillah about how "sick" measles makes you. You are the cause of thousands of parents losing trust in the system. We can clearly see your deceptive and misleading answers to our questions. The only chance you have in restoring trust in the system is through honesty. For example, you can admit measles is not deadly. Meaning, if everyone in the country stops vaccinating, very few, and possibly nobody, will die. However, measles makes you very sick, etc... And then people can make an informed decision if they would like to get vaccinated. But instead, you twisted the facts, making it sound like there was a huge drop in mortality after the vaccine was introduced. And you even ended by saying "the people who died aren't here to tell their stories", implying that if we stop vaccinating, people will start dropping like flies. And that is factually incorrect.

You ended your video with a warning for those who want to put an end to school mandates: "Measles can make you sick, and measles can make you hospitalized, and measles can make you dead. This is not a disease we want to relive". These are good examples of what we call "fear mongering". There was a great rabbi who lived from 1895 to 1986. His name was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. Several of his conversations were recorded by his grandchildren in a 4-volume book. In one of those conversations, it is recorded that he made the following comments: It's in Hebrew, but he complained about doctors who exaggerate the risk and danger of disease, generating fear among their patients, convincing them to get vaccinated. He described those doctors as "the epitome of evil". He said doctors need to be honest, and tell it the way it is, and they need to stop scaring people with false data. There were several such conversations where he made similar comments. If anyone would like to see all of the conversations in writing, shoot me an email, and I'll be happy to provide a copy. As you said in your video, "It's hard to retract the fear. It's hard to unscare people once you've scared them". You should take your own advice.

This was a very productive conversation. There are thousands of parents out there who are just beginning to question vaccines, and are unsure whether or not to continue vaccinating their children. This email conversation will give those parents confirmation and reassurance that they are on the right track.

Thank you for your time.

Raphael Szendro

rszendro@gmail.com

---

In Part 2, G-d willing, we discuss the risks of the measles vaccine. In other words, even if measles isn’t deadly, why NOT just get the measles shot, if only to avoid the great discomfort of being sick with measles?