Originally published January 4 2013
Study: 97 percent of children affected by 2009 mumps outbreak were vaccinated for condition
by Jonathan Benson, staff writer
(NaturalNews) More evidence has emerged showing the complete failure of modern vaccines to provide any real protection against disease. A recent study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) reveals that an astounding 97 percent of children affected by a mumps outbreak that swept the Northeast back in 2009 had already been vaccinated for the condition in accordance with recommended government guidelines.
According to the study, 3,502 children of primarily Orthodox Jewish upbringing developed mumps between June 28, 2009, and June 27, 2010, as a result of an unusual "face-to-face" educational method used at certain all-boys Jewish schools throughout the New York and New Jersey areas. Among those affected by the outbreak, 97 percent were said to be Orthodox Jewish persons, and nearly one-third were between the ages of 13 and 17.
After confirming 1,648 cases of infection using clinical specimens, the research team that compiled the study determined that 89 percent of all those who contracted mumps as a result of the outbreak had already been vaccinated at least twice for mumps, presumably with the controversial measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) combination vaccine that has been implicated in causing gastrointestinal disorders and autism. Another eight percent of the group had reportedly received only one dose of the mumps vaccine.
When combined, these percentages translate into a 97 percent vaccination rate among all those affected by the mumps outbreak, leaving only three percent unconfirmed as having ever been vaccinated. What this means, of course, is that the MMR vaccine was essentially useless in conferring protection in this case, at least as far as mumps is concerned, and that parents would do well to think twice about administering this toxic vaccine to their children.
"The epidemiologic features of this outbreak suggest that intense exposures, particularly among boys in schools, facilitated transmission and overcame vaccine-induced protection in these patients," wrote the authors in their conclusion, basically admitting that the mumps vaccine provides no real protection against the disease.
You can read the study's abstract for free here:
MMR vaccine actually damages natural immunity, increases risk of disease contraction But what exactly constitutes "intense exposure" anyway, and how is this really any different than common exposure? In an apparent effort to rationalize away the findings, some reports have suggested that because the group most affected was "boys in schools," this particular outbreak was somehow unusual and atypical, and not indicative of the effectiveness of vaccines on a larger scale. But in reality, the findings show quite the opposite -- that vaccines actually increase the risk of disease transmission.
Only a very small percentage of those affected by the outbreak, eight percent, had received one vaccination dose for mumps, while the vast majority of the rest had received at least two doses. This suggests that those who received two doses of MMR were actually more likely than those who received just one to contract the disease. Next to that, only a very small fraction of the remaining cases were unaccounted for, which suggests unvaccinated individuals actually had the highest levels of immune protection during the outbreak.
The takeaway from all this is that the "herd immunity" concept we are constantly told is necessary to prevent disease outbreaks is absolute bunk. If anything, vaccinated children are the ones most responsible for spreading disease during an outbreak, as the viral components delivered to their bodies through vaccines are shed onto primarily immunocompromised individuals, who just so happen to be other vaccinated individuals. There is simply no other way to validly interpret these and other similar findings in recent years, which only further prove that vaccines are neither safe nor effective.
Sources for this article include:
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml